2003 Planning Commission Packets

Home Browse Search

IViounds View Pianning Co�mission Re�talar ldieeiing 5. Planna�g Cas� VI203-001 February 5, 2003 Page 2 Community Development Director Ericson indicated the applicant had requested a variance from the parking requirements as the applicant plans to expand the four-plex by constructing two. additiona] units in the base�neni. Tlie property is zoned R-3 and a six-unit building would be allowed in an R-3 zoning districi, however, tl�ere is not enough parking on-site: to satisfy the zoning code requirements. Director Ericson explained that the City Code requires 2.5 parking stalis per dwelliug unit and one of those stalls needs to be a garage stali. He then indicatecl tlzat this property does have two garage stalls and 10 surface stalls az�d noted that to meet ihe Cziy's Code requirements tk�e: , applicant would need to have 6 garage stalls an� 9 surface stalls; Director Ericson indicated that many of the other four-plexes in the area have no garage stalls and in looking at the property there appears to be sufficient:room io. expand the parlcing lot along the east side of the building. ' Acting Chair Miller aslced if there were three gaxage stalls ; Director Ericson indicated that one stall is beirig used fox t�e garbage dumpster as an enclosed dumpster is required. , Director Ericson reminded the considered and noted that all c variance. He then briefly revif that be Director Eri ;sion that tliere are ust be satisf ed in � se critena:with the riteria that need to be justify the approvai of a �on indicated that Staff had revievsied a11 flie criteria and made the determination could not be met'and the variance;should be denied. He then indicated that, if the ;r yver.e to come to fhe City with a plan to provide additional parking, it may then r to cor�sider grantuig a variaaice from the garage stall requirements. on indicateci this meeting had been noticed as a public hearing and residents were hen ind�cated_��e,had received two calls, one from Colonial Village and the represeritative indicated:that they:would not be in favor af ihe expansion if #he parking requirements could not be m,e� and the ather call was from a neighbor calling for further iriformation who did not provide Staff wzth an apinion on the matier. Direcior Ericson indicated one of tlle property owners was iii attendance at the meeting to answer any questions. He tlien indicated thai the Comrnission couid ezther deny based on the fact that th:e �ardship requirements had not been met or postpone action and aliow time for �he applicants to consider further parking accornmodations. The public heaz-ing was opened at 7:05 p.m.