Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Board of Appeals, Case No. 1983-3 cont'd. <br /> <br />STAFF COMMENTS: <br /> <br />The Building code requirements have all been met. The Fire <br />Marshall stated that as long as they have the side and rear <br />access easements, he is satisfied with the project. Planning and <br />Zoning agreed with the use and noted that if the building were <br />smaller it would probably hinder the use of the building. <br />Therefore it meets the intent of the area. Parks and Rec <br />approved the landscaping plans. <br /> <br />COMMENTS FROM THOSE OPPOSED: <br /> <br />No one expressed any negative comments. A few individuals called <br />the Building Department prior to this meeting to find out what <br />was proposed for Cannon Street itself. Whether it would extend <br />into their present housing area or curve around to Highway 42. <br />We told them it would curve around to 42. <br /> <br />ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD: <br /> <br />The Board wanted to know why the parking wasn't put in the rear <br />of the building, thus putting the building in a lot lower profile <br />and having the landscaping in the rear where the contour of the <br />land already is suitable for the drainage requirements? That <br />proposal was provided to the City, but rejected by the Planning <br />Department because of the way the 7-11 store is set back so far, <br />it wouldn't look right. If they turned the building 90 degrees <br />then we couldn't have any glass because of the distance to the <br />property lines. Basically it is designed like this for <br />appearance sake, and drainage. <br />The Board questioned various proposed tenants for the building <br />and the effects of the various types of occupancies on the <br />parking. <br /> <br />VOTE BY THE BOARD: <br /> <br />MOTION WAS MADE TO accept the proposed reduced setback of 8 feet <br />from the required 20 feet, by Don Ross and seconded by Robert <br />Davies. The motion passed unanimously. Variance was granted. <br /> <br />2 <br />