10-07-1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I PLANNING COMMISSION Page 4 . September 16, 1998 Miller asked if the island between the two parking lots would remain. Dan Hall, told the Commission the island would remain "as is." �x�'}` nt : x Obert recommended adding that final approval be contingent,upon exec g` d recordation of the easement document. MOTION/SECOND: Obert/Brasaemle to approve Resc ion No. 5::!0-98,':4.c .. Approving a Variance Request to Allow a Joint Use Pa g • and 'ess Arranairetr n the Businesses and a Zero-Foot Parking Lot Setback, . ,: "or:for 2200 & 22 ", 1,g ay 10, Daniel Hall representing the Mermaid. s " z t�: VOTE: Ayes - 6 Nays - 0 3> . • Motion carried Planning Case No. 535-98 -, ``"t< ; Property Involved: 8111 Eastwood Roar' �° 2`4_� F Consideration of Resolution No. 5584~.,, a Res sf tion approving a Variance to Allow for two . Curb Cuts. ` Applicant: Michael Tobias y< The appliiiireWhael Tobi.'+'Xw.'dot resent. : ." `-'moi 11'4,1:74114,11 Vflir-' Associate Ericss repor :�•s: Aggeagatiie:ft,. IV The applicantvas requestingz .variance from the Code requirement that states a single-family propert ,shall be limiter r 1:::.;:N® - . : . . . - -: ' . , • • .. -. -.t a building permi to resurface his driveway, which had access onto both Sherwood Road and Eastwood Road At that time staff i dicated that a building permit could not be approved due to the nnnforming naturethe driveway, unless the access to Sherwood Road was removed. The applicant agreed and t o permit was issued. Subsequent reinspection of the property showed that b€tt .ac sss`point j emained, both having been improved contrary to the permit. The applicant voomogittigsiriling that they had two alternatives to resolve the situation: 1. Remove the driveway access to Sherwood Road 2. Apply for and receive a variance The applicant chose to apply for a variance in order to maintain the driveway in its present condition.