Laserfiche WebLink
niWADS <br />REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION <br />f <br />,STAFF REPORT <br />CITY COUNCIL. MEETING DATE JULY 26, 1993 <br />Agenda Section: 9.D. <br />Report Number: 93-566C <br />Report Date: 7/21/93 <br />Council Action: <br />O Special Order of Business <br />Cl Public Hearings <br />0 Consent Agenda <br />Ific Council Business <br />Item Description: Continued Discussion Regarding Request for Conditional Use Permit/Variance <br />For Gateway Foods, 2390 Highway. 10, Planning Case No. 362-93 <br />Administrator's Review/Recommendation: <br />- No comments to supplement this report <br />- Comments attached. <br />Explanation/Summary (attach supplement sheets as necessary.) <br />UMMARY; <br />At the July 12, 1993 City Council Meeting, Staff and the City Attorney were <br />directed by the Council to draft a resolution of denial for the requested <br />variance at 2390 Highway 10. The Council determined that the variance, <br />necessary for the placement of a fully automated car wash on the property <br />at a setback less than that required by Municipal Code, did not meet the <br />criteria for approval as outlined in the Municipal Code or State Statutes. <br />Following this decision, the applicant has decided to relocate the <br />structure on the property. Although no site plan has been reviewed, the <br />applicant assures Staff that the new location of the facility on .the <br />property meets all applicable setback requirements. The applicant is <br />requesting that this new plan be considered in light of the fact that a <br />variance is no longer necessary. Staff sees no problem in reviewing the <br />alternative site plan, however, referral of the request back to the <br />Planning Commission level would appear appropriate. <br />Paul Harrington; City Planner <br />RECOMMENDATION: <br />Take no action on the requested variance and refer the alternative site <br />plan back to the Planning Commission for review. <br />