Laserfiche WebLink
Site Plan & Nonconforming Use Variance Review – Jamatar II LLC and Everest Properties LLC <br />Planning Commission Report; 11-17-20 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Page 14 <br />Commission <br />Options: <br />The Planning Commission has the following options: <br />A) RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUESTS based on the <br />applicant’s submittals and findings of fact. <br />B) RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE REQUESTS based on the applicant’s <br />submittals and findings of fact. <br />C) TABLE THE ITEM and request additional information. <br />Because of the late application date, staff has already extended the decision <br />deadline out an additional 60 days. The current deadline for a decision is 1/28/21 <br />which cannot be extended unless done so in writing by the applicant. <br /> <br />Template Denial <br />Motion: <br />(not recommended) <br /> “I move that we recommend the City Council deny the requested site plan <br />amendment and nonconforming use variance for parking based on the <br />following findings of fact:” <br />o (provide findings to support your conclusion) <br /> <br />Template Approval <br />Motion: <br />RECOMMENDED <br /> “I move we recommend the City Council approve the requested site plan <br />amendment and nonconforming use variance for parking based on the <br />findings of fact and suggested conditions listed on pages 14 & 15 of the <br />report as may have been amended here tonight.” <br /> <br />Suggested Findings <br />of Fact: <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />1. Legal nonconforming improvements (some of which predate the current <br />zoning ordinance) on these properties have been previously authorized by <br />City approvals. <br />2. Parking up to and over interal lot lines on these sites as currently configured <br />achieves the City’s broader goal of meeting the parking needs of our <br />busiensses while having no impact on aesthetics or the health, safety, and <br />welfare of the community. <br />3. Honoring and allowing for zero lot line parking setbacks in this setting, given <br />historical approvals, is necessary for the success of the area until such time as <br />one or more of the buildings is removed or until lot lines are shifted. <br />4. The request to relocate parking easements to more efficiently use limited <br />space between multiple businesses is a reasonable request. <br />5. The current landowners are not responsible for the current building or parking <br />space locations.