Laserfiche WebLink
Page 2 <br />require an asphalt drive at least in the area of the future road <br />in order to provide loop back to 27th Ave. NW. <br />The-dead end at the other end of'the lot could be solved by <br />providing a similar type of connection to the apartment building <br />parking lot or by 'moving the,,main driveway to the tennis club to <br />the north. <br />The variance request is necessitated because a recent major <br />amendment to the Zoning Code added the requirement (Section 10-080 <br />(b)) of a 50' setback from 'R-1 districts of a non-residential <br />building in a B-1'district. The proposed structure would have a <br />15' setback from the R-1 districts to the west and north As <br />there will be park land on one side and garages on 'the other, this <br />would not seem to be -a problem, although we would recommend that <br />one or two large trees be planted on each of those side in order <br />to,break"up the expanse of blank wall which will exist. <br />No detailed plans of the structure have been prepared-*as.yet. <br />It is not possible to issue a building permit at this time since <br />_there is no street and no utilities to serve the property. This <br />creates a minor problem in that variances and special use permits <br />expire in 180 days unless an extension is given. Since it appears <br />that construction will not be able to start within 180 days, the. <br />Council might wish to extend this time period as a condition of <br />the variance and special use permit. <br />R-82, Planning Commission Recommendation - Dec. 18, 1974: <br />Motion by Aitken, seconded by Formell, to recommend rezoning <br />to B-l rather than B-3 based on the Planning Commission's opinion: <br />that this is a more appropriate use for the site and based on the <br />opinion that Section 8-010-(a4) permits a use such as that proposed. <br />Motion carried, 4-0 <br />Motion by Partyka, seconded by Aitken, to recommend rezoning to <br />B-3 only if the Council does not agree with the supposition in the <br />previous motion that the tennis facility may be permitted in a B-1 <br />district and only if the rezoning is tied to thetennis facility. <br />Motion carried, 4-0. <br />SP-53. Planning Cummission Recommendation Dec. 18,- 1974: <br />Motion by Bohling, seconded by Formell, to reco mend approval.' <br />of Sp-53 with the following conditions: