CCP 04-13-1987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

---------- -------- . Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting, April 1, 1987 Page 4 SITE PLAN Planner advised that neither approach would apply; he discussed . (Cont'd) the permitted uses in the industrial district. He stated that given the limited access to the site, the industrial uses defined may conform more with the area. Miller stated his opinion is that he sees no problems with the proposed rezoning to I-2; noted the Arsenal property, in the Comprehensive Plan, has been designated as an industrial district. Commission members consensus was that the overall site plan is good and there are no apparent problems with the proposed rezoning requests. however, issues may arise at the Public Hearing for rezoning. There was discussion re: procedure for recommendations relating to the site plan; lighting, landscaping and drainage plans; and related variances. Planner noted several procedural approaches Commission may pursue. Moved by Zehm, seconded by Savage. that Commission recommends Council approval of the Site Plan, Case 87-08, Scherer Brothers Lumber Company, 4947 Highway 10, contingent upon approval of the Rezoning application at a future hearing and subject to future amendments based on information arising from the Public Hearing. Furthermore, that Commission recommends Council approval of the requested Variances and related plans as follows: 1. A 50 ft. setback variance at the west property line. 2. A 50 ft. setback variance at the north property line. 3. A 50 ft. setback variance at the east property line. 4. A Site Coverage variance of approximately 20%. . 5. The Lighting Plan is subject to City Planner approval. 6. The Landscape Plan, with additional screening provided on the South and North sides of the site, is subject to City Planner approval. 7. The Drainage Plan is subject to City Engineer review and approval. Motion carried unanimously. (7-0) CASE NO.87-09; Planner reviewed the request for a 5 foot front yard and SETBACK VAR'S, 5 foot side yard variance as outlined in the letter from 3290 SANDEEN RD Keith Waters, Architect, dated March 27, 1987. Miller adVised that the property is surrounded by properties that have been granted variances; he noted that this property meets the hardship requirement of practical difficulties which necessitate the variance requests. He further advised that the 75 ft. lake setback will not be compromised. The Planner explained that the plans as drawn do not actually necessitate the need for the 5 ft. side yard setback; the R-2 district requires a 15 ft. aggregate side yard and the property meets that requirement. He commented that the architect has drawn a commendable plan for the site; noting that the house is only 18 ft. widet he stated that the side yard variance may be requested to allow the architect some flexibility with the plan. Candice MCCloskey, applicant, advised the architect had discussed the possibility of accommodating a deck on the side of the house or adjusting the . plan; she stated that may be the reason he suggested the side yard setback. -----