Laserfiche WebLink
Page 3. <br />VN-176 <br />Motion•.by Anderson, seconded by Doyle, to recommend denial of <br />VN-176 because the applicant was not present to answer questions <br />from the Planning Commission regarding 'the option of acquiring <br />property to the north that could eliminate the need for..a <br />variance, because the Planning Commission does not-approve of <br />the proposal to face the vehicle doors.-toward Old Highway 8 and <br />that as`an alternative, it appears access could be provided to <br />the east, and that .there is inadequate building setback and <br />vehicle access width on the north. <br />Motion carried - 4 - 0 <br />Motion by Medved, seconded by Wickland, 'to recommend approval of <br />NC-25 because of reduction in the non-conformities as follows <br />1. Driveways will bs reduced to 36 feet in width.. <br />2. The .driveway for parking in"the front yard wil be decreased. <br />3. Thee landscaping in the front yard will be increased to <br />31 ft. ,from :the front property. line. <br />4. Concrete curbing will be provided along driveways adjacent <br />to Old Highway S. <br />Such approval to be conditioned on the provision of adequate access <br />,to the parking area on the north side of-the building :and on the <br />condition that ou side storage or display of materials other than <br />.living nursery and plant stock not be permitted in the front yard. <br />Motion carried - 4 -.0 <br />Motion by Wickland, seconded by Anderson, o recommend denial of <br />LP-5? based on the elements discussed in VN-176. <br />The'-Director of Community Development noted that if the. variance <br />were denied the landscape. and ,plot plan could not be approved as <br />presented because it showed a buildingaaation violating a set- <br />back requirement. He stated-that for this reason a recommendation <br />of denial would be consistent with the earlier .action. on the <br />variance. <br />Motion carried - 4 - Q <br />Motion by Wickland, seconded by Medved, to suggest to the applicant - <br />and the City Council that the`problemsnoted in regard to the re- <br />quest could be solved by the addition of-an adequate amount of land <br />from the property to the north in order. to provide an adequate <br />driveway to th'e rear of'the Petscher property. <br />Motion carried - 4 - 0 <br />