CCP 09-30-1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I inform them of the approval process. The Staff was made aware of the pending . I construction by transmittals from the RCWO and the applicant provided the City with a .. preliminary site plan. The City provided the UFO, on several occasions the necessary applications for a SUP amendment, but the completed forms were not received by the City until after the parking lot was constructed and a stop work order was issued by the I City. C. Planning Commission Recommendation. The Planning Commission on September 4, I 1996 recommended denial of Planning Case #96-18, SUP amendment and Variances (driveway width and minimum parking lot setback from residential uses), the recommendation was based on the following findings: I 1. The variance (parking lot) requested is 88 percent (9 feet, when 75 feet is required) to 96 percent (3 feet, when 75 feet is required) of the minimum setback I required by the City Code is excessive and not in keeping with either the spirit or intent of the ordinance; 2. The pond which exists on the site limits the ability to fully develop the property; I 3. Alternate sites, locations, and development concepts do exist that would allow UFO to accomplish their current activities; 4. Governmental entities, when at all possible, should set positive examples in the I development and design of public facilities; 5. The proximity of the parking lot to adjacent residential uses does not provide for adequate buffering, albeit that it does provide for the 60 percent opacity ., requirement; 6. The parking lot is not required by UFO to protect the public health, safety, I comfort and general welfare; and 7, Approval of such an extreme variance with little or no supporting data sets a unfavorable precedence for the review all future variance cases. I Updates. The Staff met with UFO after the Planning Commission meeting to discuss D, methods to avoid or minimize the variance request. Staff provided UFO with several I concepts to consider (Exhibit A-1). The first concept to consider is to add approximately three parking spaces in the southwest comer of the lower parking area. The second concept to consider is to add approximately five parking spaces in the southwest comer of I the northerly upper parking area. The second concept would require the closure of an access point to the northerly upper parking area. The third concept to consider is to add approximately four parking spaces to the east side of the southerly upper parking area. I The third concept would require the dumpster to be relocated to a new undetermined location, These three concepts could add 12 new parking spaces to the UFO property. If I the three concepts are enacted, then the ten parking spaces on the northerly row of parking on the lower level parking area and the easternmost two parking spaces on the southerly row of parking on the lower level parking area could be eliminated. The I resultant setbacks from these modifications would be 21 feet from the northerly property line and 39 feet from the easterly property line. .. I