Laserfiche WebLink
<br />PLANNING REPORT <br /> <br />DA TE: <br /> <br />5 December 1990 <br /> <br />CASE NUMBER: <br /> <br />2179 <br /> <br />APPLICANT: <br /> <br />John Palmer/South <br />Partnership <br /> <br />Oaks <br /> <br />LOCA TlON: <br /> <br />1080 W. County Road D (see <br />sketch) <br /> <br />ACTION REQUESTED: <br /> <br />Variance <br /> <br />PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: <br /> <br />1. BACKGROUND <br /> <br />Consideration of this application was continued at the last Planning <br />Commission meeting due to the fact that the applicant, Mr. Palmer, <br />was unaware of a number of the engineering considerations that had <br />been identified during the review of the request. The five engineering <br />considerations noted in the review are as follows: <br /> <br />1) The watermain easement for the property that was prepared in <br />the 1960's was incorrect and needed to be replaced; <br />2) The existing parking lot does not have concrete curb and gutter <br />around it. The plan that was submitted in 1971 for the approval <br />of variances showed concrete curbing; <br />3) There is no sidewalk along the County Road D side of the <br />subject property; <br />4) There is an existing sign within 10 feet of the right-at-way line; <br />and <br />5) The fence along the rear property line encroaches between 1 and <br />2 feet on the neighboring property. <br /> <br />We met with Mr. Palmer and discussed these items. <br /> <br />It was agreed that the City Engineering staff would prepare a new <br />easement and that Mr. Palmer and his partners would sign it and return <br />it to the City. Mr. Palmer and his partner purchased this property <br />after the 1971 variances were approved, and they were not aware of <br />the requirement for concrete curbing around the parking lot. This <br />matter is complicated by the fact that they recently resurfaced the <br />parking lot. He agreed to discuss this matter with his partner and <br />determine if the contracting work for the resurfacing was done without <br />a permit and to report back to the Planning Commission his position on <br />this matter. There is no sidewalk along the County Road D side, but <br />since the application does not involve the expansion of the use on the <br />property or redevelopment of the site, it would be appropriate to wait <br />until such time as either at these occur. Mr. Palmer agreed to look <br />into whether or not the existing sign could be moved and, if it could <br />be moved, he agreed to have it moved. If it turned out that the sign <br />could not be moved, then he agreed to apply for a variance. <br /> <br />iI\ <br />