Laserfiche WebLink
<br />The applicant has indicated that there is hardship and practical difficulty on the site due to <br />the substantial amount of right-of-way between their property line and the frontage road <br />which results in parking on their site to be further from the frontage road than adjacent <br />properties. However, the actual placement of the building (a condition created by the <br />property owner) too close to the front property line actually creates the need for a <br />vanance. <br /> <br />4. Emdneerin2 Considerations <br /> <br />The following are Engineering Department comments concerning this application. <br /> <br />a. The original design appears to have been geared toward using the building as a <br />screen for most of the automobile storage and display. With that in mind, it is <br />questionable whether the parking of additional vehicles in front of the building is <br />desirable. <br /> <br />b. A grading and drainage plan will be needed before the Engineering Department can <br />give approval to any building permit. Storm water surface flow directly into the <br />street is not allowed. City records indicate that a storm sewer system exists at the <br />westerly driveway which could be utilized. Rate control for the lO-year event is <br />required. <br /> <br />c. Site lighting needs to be clarified, with only down cast lighting allowed. <br /> <br />d. The new parking lot will reduce the amount oflandscaping space available. No <br />landscape plan has been submitted to determine the impact of this. <br /> <br />e. At this time, it is unknown when (of if) the frontage road will be expanded within <br />the right-of-way. <br /> <br />5. Alternatives <br /> <br />a. It is possible to create more parking space adjacent to the front of the building by <br />constructing retaining walls parallel with the front (south) face ofthe building. <br /> <br />b. Additional customer parking space could be created within the used car display <br />areas. <br /> <br />c. The applicant could request the City to sell to them an additional 10 feet of <br />property (which is currently unused) within the right-of-way. <br /> <br />6. Staff Recommendation <br /> <br />The planning staff recommends that the proposed variance request be denied. There is no <br />hardship or practical difficulty present on the site. Alternate designs and solutions do exist <br />that provide the same amount of parking. <br /> <br />Staff Report by: Rick Jopke <br /> <br />2 <br />