CCP 11-25-2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Approue�l 2. The applicant withdraws the request for a Variance, in writing, prior to expiration of the initial 60 -day review period on October 26, 2008. Should the applicant not withdraw the variance request in writing, staff will send notice that the City will take an additional 60 -days to review the variance. 3. The fence surrounding the proposed patio does not exceed a height of 3 `/z feet and otherwise complies with Zoning Code Sections 5-550 and 5-240 (15) (e). 4. Primary access to the patio must be from within the building. 5. The patio is constructed in the location and by the dimensions (15' x 30') shown on the submitted survey dated August 21, 2008. 6. "Temporary structures, such as tents, may not be allowed on the patio area. Tables, chairs, umbrellas and the like may be permitted. 7. The applicant submits a Landscape Plan to the City Planner and City forester at the time of building permit that provides screening along the west side of the patio area, placed in a manner to provide eye level screening from Old Highway 8. 8. No signs, banners, streamers or the like are allowed to be displayed within the patio area. Howard asked if Public Safety had any comments on the safety of the patio. Gundlach replied Public Safety and Itamscy County have reviewed the proposal and provided no comments. Is 7 ayes, 0 nays. MO'T'ION APPROVED. COMMISSIONER O Biefl,N RECUSED HIMSELFF'OR TIIL FOLLOWING PUBLIC HEARING. Public Hearing: MS2008-003, 1,P2008-008, VN2008-004 Minor Subdivision, Site Plan, and Variance to Allow Development of a 4,406 SF Retail/Office Building & Surface Parking on the West 150' of 2350 Palmer Drive The Minor Subdivision, Site Plan and Variance requests for 4,406 5f commercial building and associated parking were initially heard before the Commission on September 16, 2008, The Commission opened the public hearing and discussed the proposed Minor Subdivision, Site Plan and Variance. In summary, it appeared that a majority of"the Commission felt a valid hardship had not been presented by the applicant. The Commission tabled action to the October 2151 meeting and directed staff to compile additional information for further discussion. Staff reveiwcd the additional information requested by the Commission at the last meeting. Staff finds that a valid hardship has not been presented and thus the Variance should be denied. Staff also finds it important to consider the fact that the applicant is creating their own hardship by not purchasing enough land to support their intended use, i.c, the land is proposed to be subdivided rather than developing an existing lot of record. In reality, with the size of the building and parking requested, the applicant is over- building on a site of this size. In staff's view, it would be precedent setting to approve a • variance where the hardship is self-created and the State Law prohibits such an action.