Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Gary Vogel, Case No. 2494 <br /> <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />3. CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION <br /> <br />While the city has an interest in assuring high quality, <br />attractive development on its public roadways, this must be <br />balanced with the real-world needs of businesses. When a new <br />business is built, these two issues can usually both be met, with <br />some reasonable compromise. In the case of Midway Ford, an <br />existing business is renovating its site in response to a city <br />action to vacate the frontage road. To comply with the zoning <br />Code standards for the relocated fence, Midway Ford has two <br />options: <br /> <br />1) Build the fence less than 4' high in the front yard, or <br /> <br />2) Build the fence across the new parking area to keep the <br />view open from snelling Avenue to the building, in keeping <br />with the previous variance. <br /> <br />Both of these options, in our op1.n1.on, present serious practical <br />difficulties. The first because it would not provide the needed <br />security, the second because it would impose unreasonable demands <br />for access through the fence within the parking lot, and would not <br />reasonably meet the aesthetic intent of the Code. The ci ty I in <br />its previous variance, acknowledged implicitly that the fence was <br />necessary for the site. For these reasons, we recommend approval <br />of the variance request. <br />