12-20-2005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Not Approved Baker approves of the project as it is and would pass it as it has been presented. Burg inquired to how many square feet the patio is and how many chairs and tables will fit in the space. She question what the impact to seating would be if it was brought within the variance line. Champp’s owner replied that there are 50 or so dining seats. Fernelius added that four tables would be lost if the patio moved back within the required side yard setback. Zisla questioned if it matters to the commission that this is a patio and not an enclosed addition. O’Brien replied that many times a deck or patio, as long as it is built on the ground and not supported by columns, has been considered landscaping and not part of the building, so there is an interpretation that can be taken in the code. Schiferl agreed with that interpretation, but feels that question should be answered by the City Attorney. Baker stated that if it was a fence instead of a wall, it would pass. O’Brien agreed and stated that fences can go past the setback line. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Motion by Zisla, Second O’Brien by to MOTION CARRIED. 4 Ayes, 0 Nays, Zisla requested that the hardship statement include the following findings: “The redevelopment of the existing facility, onsite constraints related to the parking, along with inadequate traffic circulation.” AMEND THE FINDINGS OF FACT Motion by Baker, second by Howard to to read: 8. The proposal is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and the quality of construction enhances adjacent properties. 11. The redevelopment of the existing facility, onsite constraints related to the parking, along with inadequate traffic circulation.” MOTION CARRIED. 5 Ayes, 0 Nays. Motion by Zisla, second by O’Brien to WAIVE THE READING AND ADOPT THE ATTACHED RECOMMENDINGAPPROVAL VN05-05 & LP05-11 as designed. RESOLUTION OF MOTION APPROVED. 4 Ayes, 1 Nay. Public Hearing: NC05-06 / LP05-12 Type 4 Non-conforming use permit and Site Plan Review for 52 detached garage units at 2090-2160 County Road E. Consideration of an application by Charles Schatz, DJR Architecture for a Site Plan Review and Type 4 non-conforming use permit. The purpose of the request is to construct 52 detached garage units for the existing apartment building on site. The subject site consists of four buildings located at 2090, 2100, 2130 and 2160 County Road E2 and is zoned R-3A, Multiple Family Residential. The applicant will be reducing the above non-conformities as follows: the parking lot will be improved including curbing, the landscape plan shows an increase in screening, the number of enclosed parking stalls will be increased, and the rear building setbacks will be increased. I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\Minutes\2005\12-20-2005.doc