Laserfiche WebLink
. �e � :. .ois '..,,�.=ir::�;�_r <br /> ��� ^��r-�:rii��!'�tia':; ;;.,_ :S.:�an5ion <br /> 13�G - <br /> .��x. <br /> H <br /> S+H[n '_9. ;iie i:verett i'lanning ;;aparcctenr -=_co�nende:t �pprov,�l of tne �e:pansion oP <br /> t' .� ' <br /> i-+ 7� the non-concorming u;z subjecc to che con�iitions as set CnLtli in the <br /> K z n ;taff report: crhich was admicted as exhibit 1. <br /> H 7J <br /> � H'�TJ '_0. T_he Applicants submitted titat they support the cverett Ptannin� <br /> �~ llepartmenc's recommendacioa with the exception oi aonditio❑ °:1. <br /> t7 O n Cond:.tion ��l stated: <br /> H C7 <br /> � n d Provide a five foc. wide, six foot high landscape Uuffer <br /> r-i [�10 along the rear ann side property iines. The asphalc <br /> y� � area i.n the :ront yard, except for the main driveway, <br /> y y z snall be removed and replaced s+ith landscaping. <br /> r� <br /> i-+H <br /> tytn 31. The �xisting site has an asphalted front yard. The City ha:; <br /> � d� determined ChaC this asphslt is not needed because there i_s <br /> adequace parking and turnaround space in the rear of t::�:� <br /> �tr-7 property. Ln lieu oc tne asphalt, the City has recommende�i <br /> yp y rhat a �e foot landscape strip be planted. <br /> '_>2. The Applicancs submi[ted that there is no need for a five foot <br /> wide, six foot high Landscape buffer along the rear and sicie <br /> property lines. 0❑ the east property ilne there are large <br /> -- poplar trees which Nill remain. This greenery, three ieec <br /> wide and five feet high, is mature �;rowth that provides <br /> adequate screening to the site. On the west sidc of the <br /> y"��'a property is a recently constructed cedar Eence cliat provides <br /> ia� adequate screening of the property to tlie west. <br /> v e ^3. She 9pplicants submitted tliat requiring removal ui r:�e <br /> �i parking/driveway in the front of the building crill effectively <br /> eliminaCe a turnaround for the public and the Applicants. 'Phe <br /> 9pplicants submitted that in lieu of providing landscaping in <br /> ��� the Eront there should be an entry way complimented with a I <br /> '�`i small landscaping str.ip. According to the Applicants, this { <br /> would provide an efficient method of getting to and from the { <br /> � f` site withuut having to go into the rear of the property. <br /> 24. An adjoining property owner (Dan Pederson) submitted that the � <br /> front driveway is not a proble� and that uther uses in the , <br /> vicinity create more of an impact wLth parking and disruption <br /> '�� of traffic on Pecks Drive. Ile submitted that the driveway, as I <br /> proposed by the Applicants for a smull driveway with a small � <br /> '� landscape strip, wss more consistent with tiie surrounding <br /> /� propec•ties than the landscaping as proposed by Che City. <br /> The !ditness ais�� submitted that he does not desire a greenbelt <br /> � near his prorerty, west oE [he subject propeety. The cedar <br /> rence is adequate and it is part of a drainage scheme of the � <br /> Pederson propexcy. <br /> ' <br /> ...ac�:�°r+��---r----- --- — <br />