Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />JUNE 11, 1998 <br />REZONING, <br />CUP, & <br />VARIANCE — <br />89 W. COUNTY <br />ROAD C — <br />MCMILLAN <br />Motion carried 7 — 0. <br />Doug and Jan McMillan appeared before the Commission requesting <br />approval of a rezoning from General Business (B -3) to Residential <br />Business (RB), a Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of a <br />mixed use residential /commercial building in a Residential Business <br />Zoning District, and a Variance allowing for the reduction of the 15 -foot <br />required side yard setback on the east side of the property. The <br />McMillan's are proposing to construct a coffee shop on this site. They <br />would have living quarters in the second floor of the shop. <br />Mr. McMillan reported that he has reviewed the recommendations of the <br />City Planner and the only one he has issue with is the reduction of setback <br />on the west side of the building. McMillan pointed out that they will have <br />a handicapped ramp on that side of the building, and moving the building <br />further west will bring that ramp within two feet of the five foot setback to <br />the curb. McMillan pointed out that under the B -3 zoning, construction <br />can occur right up to the property line. Therefore, they designed the site <br />so that the building would be five feet from the eastern property line. <br />McMillan felt this was a preferable layout given the handicapped ramp <br />and parking stalls on the west side of the building. <br />Jan McMillan reported having the five foot setback on the east would <br />allow them to put in two handicapped parking spaces on the west next to <br />the ramp. <br />Doug McMillan felt that a compromise would be to have a 10 foot setback <br />on the east, rather than the 15 feet proposed by the Planner. <br />Keis pointed out that an adjustment of this setback may result in a <br />variance on both the east and west sides of the property. <br />Doug McMillan again pointed out that if the zoning remains commercial <br />there would be no setback required. <br />Mrs. Kukk, adjacent property owner, stated that she thought a lot needed <br />to have 100 feet in width in order to develop as commercial property. The <br />Planner pointed out that this is an existing lot of record; therefore, it would <br />be allowed to develop. <br />Jan McMillan anticipated that a good share of the business to the coffee <br />shop will be foot traffic. McMillan felt the shop would be an attractive <br />addition to the area as well as a nice transition from the single- family <br />residential homes in the area. <br />6 <br />Page 49 <br />