06-08-06 Planning Comm. Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ex-wife was 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 reed 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. !f this were done, an amendment could be ccnsidered. 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 conditions, planning staff can 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 roam to have the existing building, a car sales lot, 30 parking spaces required by code, outdoor storage, and room for 150 vehicles awaiting repair. Sy reducing the volume of activity, parking could be provided according to the zoning ordinance, and nc variance would be necessary. As such, planning staff does not believe that the test for a variance has been met. Summary and Recommendat9®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 were attached to the permit request were placed there to attemp# to ensure that when occupied, the site would not become a code enforcement prebiem or an eyesore to neighboring properties. Those conditions have not been complied with to date. Instead, the applicant indicates that he wishes to have those reauirements relaxed and/or removed frGm tho 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 regulaticns, 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 retention of green space are basic code requirements for business activity in the City of Little Canada. Removing any of these conditions would require variances; for which there are no demonstrated non-economic hardships shown.