Laserfiche WebLink
APPLICANT• <br />LCCATTON• <br />APPLICANT'S <br />REQUEST <br />Public Hearing <br />C~I~T-1 I7 <br />8:10 PM, April 23, 1974 <br />Nolan Bros . <br />Southwest`:: quadrant Co. Rd. E-2 and I35W <br />Variance from Sections 10-120 (g) and 12-030 (c) to <br />permit front yard parking in an industrial .district. <br />P'L'.~NNING DISCUSSION: <br />At the time of approvaJ_ of the mini-storage facility, the applicant <br />was told to combine the property in question with the parcel to the <br />south (on which the mini-storage buildings are located) in order to <br />have street access. By doing this and constructing the buildings, all <br />the property to the north became the front yard. <br />This is a sizable area and tY~e applicant would like to put it to some <br />use. The area contains very poor soil and construction of a building <br />on the site might not be economically feasible at this time. As an <br />interim use, .the developer would like to develop a parking lot for <br />recreational vehicles, boat trailers and similar types of vehicles. <br />Under Section 8-010(a)3 parking lots are a permitted use in B-1 <br />districts and by Sections 9-020 (b) and 9-060 (a) that use would also <br />be permitted in industrial districts. <br />According to Sections 10-120 (g) and 12-030 (c) parking is not permitted <br />in front yards in industrial districts, and as indicated above, the <br />proposed parking lot would be in the front yard. <br />It is not clear that it was this type of parking tot which the Council <br />meant to cover by these requirements but the wording in the ordinance, <br />especially the definition of a parking lot in Section 12-120, seems to <br />cover this proposal. <br />The Planning Commission recommendation on this variance was conditioned <br />on a landscape and plot plan being reviewed by them prior to the <br />public hearing. The applicant has been unable to have a landscape and <br />plot plan prepared as yet. <br />It should be noted that the Zoning Code does not require a landscape <br />plan where th~e.r.e ~.s no building construction. <br />P~~:nn~.nq Commission Consideration (March 19, 1974): <br />Mr. Charles Nolan appeared representing the applicant. <br />Bohling questioned whether the need for a variance was present. <br />Mayor Bromander questioned whether the applicant's proposal was front <br />