05-13-2004 Planning Comm. Agenda

Home Browse Search

ax-wife ~roas the person who had originally agreed to the permit, and (2) economics keep him from being able to comply with any of the conditions cited by the City's Code Enforcement staff. The relocation of the sales area could be accomplished under the zoning regulations, under several conditions. The applicant would need to replace the lost parking by paving and curbing a new parking lot. This lot would need to be located in within the area now dedicated to outdoor storage. If this were done, an amendment could be considered. However, the applicant has indicated that he can not comply with terms that would cost him money for paving, and this solution would require the removal of several vehicles he wishes to have on the site awaiting repair. Without these conditicns, planning staff care not recommend approval of the CUP amendment. Variance As noted above, the variance request would reduce the parking supply from 30 to 14. For a variance, an applicant must show that a physical hardship is present that interferes with putting the property to a reasonable use. Such conditions may not be economic in nature, nor may they be created by the applicant. In this case, the applicant's difficulty is in conducting too much business activity on the site. There does not appear to be room to have the existing building, a car sales lot, 30 parking spaces required by code, outdoor storage, and room for 150 vehicles awaiting repair. By reducing the volume or activity, parking could be provided according to the zoning ordinance, and no variance would be necessary. As such, planning staff does not believe that the test for a variance has been met. Sasrnrnary and Recornmendati®n The original CUP was issued to accommodate both automobile sales and outdoor storage -two uses that the zoning ordinance allows but traditionally are not encouraged by the City. The conditions that ~,vere attached to the permit request were placed there to attempt to ensure that when occupied, the site would not become a code enforcement problem or an eyesore to neighboring properties. Those conditions have net been complied with to date. Instead, the applicant indicates that he wishes to have tl pose requirements relaxed andlor removed from the permit. Planning staff does not believe that relaxation or removal of the conditions would be in keeping with the intent of the City's zoning regulations, nor would it be consistent with the other permits approved in the City. Provision of required parking areas, paving of parking lots and sales areas, and the retentior; of green space are basic code requirements for business activity in the Cifv of i_ittie Canada. Removing any of these conditions would require variances; for whicn :here are no demonstrated non-economic hardships shown.