Laserfiche WebLink
Assistant Community Development Director Frolik replied 200 feet of frontage is required, but it <br />is measured at the building setback line versus the right -of -way line. <br />Associate Planner Dalnes advised Mr. Minks would still only have 30 to 40 feet of frontage on a <br />cul -de -sac and would need a variance because the 200 foot lot frontage on a road requirement <br />would not be met. <br />Acting Chairperson Van Scoy questioned if 30 feet of frontage would be adequate for access. <br />Associate Planner Dalnes replied this would have to be looked at if that was something the Board <br />is willing to entertain, but a variance would still be needed. <br />Acting Chairperson Van Scoy noted one thing the Board discussed was another building on the <br />site or an extension of the building; either way there would still need to be access to that <br />building. The difference with splitting this lot is that it would not be the same owner, and when <br />it is not the same owner there is the concern down the line that there might be access problems. <br />Associate Planner Dalnes advised from the planning aspect, staff does not support the variance <br />due to the potential for land disputes increasing, and also because there are no dimensional <br />characteristics to support the variance. <br />Board Member Trites Rolle asked if the potential buyer Mr. Minks mentioned would have a <br />storage type facility, which would not necessarily be a pubic retail use. <br />Mr. Minks responded in the affirmative. He explained the traffic would not include customers <br />driving up; there would be deliveries of materials and workmen picking up their material. <br />Associate Planner Dalnes advised once the lot is platted anything in the E -1 District of permitted <br />uses could go on the site. <br />Board Member Brauer asked if the potential tenant/owner of Lot 2 is renting the carpet facility in <br />the present building. <br />Mr. Minks replied it would be a separate owner, but the user would be the same. <br />Motion by Acting Chairperson Van Scoy, seconded by Board Member Trites Rolle, to close the <br />public hearing. <br />Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Acting Chairperson Van Scoy, Board Members Trites Rolle, <br />Brauer, Hunt, and Levine. Voting No: None. Absent: Chairperson Nixt and Board Member <br />Cleveland. <br />The public hearing was closed at 7:53 p.m. <br />Board Business <br />Board of Adjustment/December 7, 2006 <br />Page 10 of 16 <br />