PC PACKET 01262015 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

November 17, 2014 Page 7 on site, and the nature of the business to have quick turnaround (pick -up and deliver) of customers, it is anticipated that parking and traffic can be handled adequately on the Property. Criteria met. e. Prevent overcrowding of land and undue concentration of structures by regulating land, buildings, yards, and densities; Allowing the requested variance will not result in overcrowding of the land or an undue concentration of structures as the buildings will not be altered from existing conditions on site. Criteria met. f. Provide for compatibility of different land uses; The proposal will not result in a change of land use, nor is it seen conflict with adjacent land uses. Having a mixture of uses and services within a close proximity to one another promotes the City's visions of having a sustainable and walkable community. Criteria met. CONCLUSIONS The Property has been utilized for commercial uses for the past several decades, and has been in close proximity to single - family residential land uses. The existing buildings on site will not change in any way (other than proposed signage along the north side of the southernmost building), nor will the layout of the existing parking lot. Having a restaurant use occupy a portion of the south building will provide an alternative dining option for residents within the immediate area and throughout the community and surrounding area. The location of the site also lends itself well to opportunities for residents and neighbors to walk to the property as opposed to traveling by vehicle. While it is acknowledged that traffic may increase to and from the Property over existing site conditions (having a vacant space), the hours of operation, size of the restaurant, number of employees and ability to share parking with the other two tenants appears to be reasonable. RECOMMENDED ACTION i. Request Additional Information and Continue the Public Hearing. The only item of additional information from the Applicant that may be useful to the Planning Commission may be some detail on the rationale for the size and shape of the proposed addition. otherwise, the Applicant has provided all of the required information for the Planning Commission's evaluation. Should the Planning Commission request additional information from the Applicant, the Planning Commission should continue the public hearing until a later time. 2. Recommend Approval (with or without conditions) of the Variance. In the event of a recommendation for approval (with or without conditions), the Planning Commission may refer to Exhibit D and may modify the draft resolution for approval to include any conditions that it deems necessary. 3. Recommend Denial of the Variance. In the event the Planning Commission chooses denial of the requested variance, it should clearly state its reasons for the denial recommendation and direct staff to prepare a resolution. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A: Location map Exhibit B: Application and Supporting Material