Staff Decision (1250) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

5.All contacted agencies either failed to respond or stated no objection to the proposal at the time this report was written. 6.Because this proposal reduces a quantifiable Ordinance standard by more than 20%, this request is classified as a Major Adjustment. 7.The decision criteria for a major adjustment are found in Section 41.04. These criteria include: (a) The degree of adjustment from the standard is the minimum necessary to permit development of the property for the proposed use; and (b) The adjustment will not have a significant adverse affect on property or improve- ments of the neighborhood of the subject property; and (c)The adjustment will not have a significant adverse affect upon the health or safety of persons working or residing in the vicinity; and (d)The adjustment will maintain the intent and purpose of the provision being ad- justed. 8.The applicants indicate that the adjustments are “...crucial to the useful development of the site in designing the proposed building.” Section 30.18(b) requires a 24 foot easement for driveways with parking adjacent on one or both sides. The applicants stated that the existing roadway easement has adequately served the two existing dental clinics behind the subject parcel for years. The driveway is fully developed with paving and concrete curbs in parking areas. The additional 4 feet added to the easement would reduce the buildable width of the parcel to a point that would impose serious design difficulties to the clinic plan. Due to the rectangular configuration of the parcel it is not possible to obtain the necessary floorspace and still meet landscaping and parking requirements. It is also necessary to reduce the required 12 foot setback requirement between the building and the access easement in order to provide the required parking for the dental clinic. It appears that in order for the building to be constructed, required parking established, and to function at the potential desired the, adjustment is the minimum necessary. The criterion in 7 (a) is satisfied. 9.There is no evidence to indicate that the adjustments will have any adverse affects on the subject or neighboring properties. In addition, the affect on the health and safety of persons working and residing in the area will be negligible. The proposal meets 7 (b) and (c). 10.The purpose statement of the CO zone indicates that it is a transitional zone between residential uses and intensive commercial uses. The provisions found in Section 5.13(a) and Section 30.18(b) are to provide an additional buffer for adjacent residential uses from taller commercial buildings, and to provide adequate space for vehicular traffic. In this