Laserfiche WebLink
PLANNING COMMISSION <br />September 16, 1998 <br />Miller asked if the island between the two parking lots would remain. <br />Dan Hall, told the Commission the island would remain "as is." <br />Obert recommended adding that final approval be contingent <br />the easement document. <br />Page 4 <br />on exe "'d. recordation of <br />MOTION /SECOND: ObertBrasaemle to approve Res <br />Approving a Variance Request to Allow a Joint Use P <br />the Businesses and a Zero-Foot Parking Lot Setback, <br />Daniel Hall representing the Mermaid. <br />VOTE: Ayes - 6 <br />6. <br />Planning Case No. 535 -98 <br />Property Involved: 8111 Eastwood Ro <br />Consideration of Resolution No. 55 <br />Curb Cuts. <br />Applicant: Michael Tobias <br />Nays <br />-98, <br />ess Arrang n <br />for2200 &22 ay10, <br />The app <br />Associate Eric <br />The appli <br />grope <br />pe <br />R <br />as re <br />all be limite <br />o resurface his d <br />At that time st <br />nforming nature <br />t agreed an <br />g a Variance to Allow for two <br />ariance from the Code requirement that states a single - family <br />e curb cut. Earlier this year, the applicant took out a building <br />which had access onto both Sherwood Road and Eastwood <br />dicated that a building permit could not be approved due to the <br />he driveway, unless the access to Sherwood Road was removed. The <br />permit was issued. Subsequent reinspection of the property showed that <br />ained, both having been improved contrary to the permit. The applicant <br />ting that they had two alternatives to resolve the situation: <br />l . Remove the driveway access to Sherwood Road <br />2. Apply for and receive a variance <br />The applicant chose to apply for a variance in order to maintain the driveway in its present <br />condition. <br />