Laserfiche WebLink
T <br />Page 3. <br />VN-176 <br />.Motion by Anderson, seconded by Boyle, to recommend denial of <br />VN-17b 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 ari alternative, it appears access could be provided to <br />the east, and that there is inadequate building setback anc~ <br />vehicle access width on the nortl9- <br />Motion carried - 4 - 0 <br />Motion by Medved,., econded by tnlickland, to recommend approval of <br />NC-25 because of reduction in the`non-conformities as fol-lowsa <br />1. Driveways will be reduced to 36 feet in width. <br />2. The driveway for :`parking in the front yard will be decreased,.. <br />~, :The landscaping in: the. front -yard sa-11 be increased .to <br />31 ft from the front property line. <br />4. Conere a curbing will be provided along driveways adjacent <br />to ©ld Highway.8. <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. outside storage or display of.materiais other than <br />living nursery and plant stock. not. be permitted in the. front .yard. <br />Mot ion carried '- 4 - _ 0 <br />Motion by Wickland,.. seconded by Anderson, to recommend denial of <br />LP--S? based on`-the a ements 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 building addition violating a set <br />back requirement. He stated that-.for this reason a recommendation: <br />of denial would-beconsistent wththe-earlier action on the <br />variance..: <br />Mot ion carried < - 4 - <br />Motion`by Wickland, ,seconded by Medved, to suggest to the applicant <br />and the Ci y Council that the problems noted in regard to `the re- <br />quest could be solved by the addition of an adequate amount of lane <br />from the property to the north in order to provide an adequate <br />driveway to the rear of the Pletscher property... <br />Motion carried - 4 - 0 <br />