Laserfiche WebLink
� I <br />.. .... , .,. . .... . . ,. . <br />._''� 1 '..' .. ;: .. : ,. ' :: .-�.-: .. .. _ _ <br />� � � -" <br />� ; � <br /><..: * � � ��, _ '. ".� A �...- ,. ���#...._.. +.,.... <br />� � • i <br />r <br />R :*��. �l.r. <br />� �. �, � # <br />�r� the office by the Communi#y Developm�n4 <br />��pariment. <br />Chair Pet�rson informed fUis. �lVhite fihat this is <br />�n infvrmal process and on�e this is <br />established the parking �rea wiil stay on the <br />property and that the new owner �� the property <br />shouid be inf�rmed of this agreeme�t. hl� <br />suggestied that the de#�ils of the letter be <br />v�eorked out �s soon as possible so ihat t�lr. <br />ivlanning could proceed v�ith �is building perrnit <br />for ihe driveway. Commissioner Miller ask�d ii <br />the Cify had a standard form that r.��id be <br />used. NI�. Sh�idon repiied tha# we dv�'t rig�t <br />nov�✓ but it is some#hing that could be �reafed. <br />nir�cior Sheldort began #he discussion by <br />expiaining this ordinance amendment r�ras <br />started in �onjunction vvith the request for a <br />c��rch dev�iopment at 3025 Coun#y Road H. <br />The adjacent property �wner has praposed a <br />Code amendmeni tha# would require ai least 15 <br />between parking lots for churches and <br />commercial u�es �hen those parking lofs are <br />nexi to residenfiai properiy. S�e �xplained tha# <br />when Sfi�ff began drafting #he ordinanc.e fo <br />bri�g it befor� �he Pla�ning �ommi�sion, <br />additional items were inclu�ed. �he reminded <br />#ha# Commission tha� at their last meeting, the <br />Commission asked if S�aff could prepare at <br />least o�e versior� of the ordinanc� 4�at <br />narrowed if back dovvn io the originad request <br />and 4hen a versiar� that had fihe oih�r items sc� <br />that if the Planning Commissior� felf that 4�e <br />[o�ger ordir�ance needed more reviev+�, fh� <br />Planning Commission vv�uld b� able io tak� the <br />origi�al request and rnove ii fon�ard. She <br />noted th�t the Ciiy afforn�y had decided the <br />sixty-day rule which limits �he length of �im� � <br />case can w�it fvr decisio�, applie� to 4his <br />request. �i�e indi�i�d th�t she h�d notif ed <br />' � 4 a ' ��� _, <br />• . . -t <br />`-� • • - `- • <br />. ' � i �� � - ..��� <br />. }- . ,. <br />. _ <br />--.. _ _ � �,. <br />� .- - <br />� <br />