Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 5 <br /> July 18, 2006 <br /> Page 5 <br /> 1 versus Anthony Lane South, which has the larger median. There is no distinction that <br /> 2 both are a foot off the line. <br /> 3 <br /> 4 Assistant City Manager Moore-Sykes stated that when she drove the site and talked to <br /> 5 the Public Works Director, she found the west side has always been considered the <br /> 6 front yard for the property. <br /> 7 <br /> 8 Commissioner Jenson asked Mr. O'Brien if the city desk area was considered the front <br /> 9 yard. <br /> 10 <br /> 11 Mr. O'Brien replied he considers the west side to be the front yard. At one time there <br /> 12 were two monument signs there. The footings were removed from this area. He does <br /> 13 not know how these were put on the City property in the first place. <br /> 14 <br /> 15 Assistant City Manager Moore-Sykes stated, in looking in the file, there is no evidence <br /> 16 of previous Conditional Use Permits or variances for this property. <br /> 17 <br /> 18 Mr. O'Brien asked about having the lights that are sitting in this area removed. <br /> 19 <br /> 20 Commissioner Jensen stated there is not a proposal to vacate the utility easement on <br /> 21 the west line so if for some reason, utilities meet under this area it could be a problem. <br /> 22 Mr. O'Brien indicated there were no utilities located here. <br /> 23 <br /> 24 Chair Stromberg remarked on the discussion at the last meeting about vacating of the <br /> 25 northeast drive onto 29th is a positive to the green space and eliminate one turning <br /> 26 movement at a busy intersection. <br /> 27 <br /> 28 Mr. O'Brien indicted the plan is to renovate the entire exterior of the building also. <br /> 29 <br /> 30 Motion by Chair Stromgren, second by Commissioner Young, to recommend approval <br /> 31 of a parking variance to the City Council at 2825 and 2827 Anthony Lane South. The <br /> 32 variance to be nine feet on the west (front yard) and four feet on the south (side yard) <br /> 33 on the basis that strict enforcement of the code without the variance would cause <br /> 34 undue hardship because the property cannot be put to reasonable use without the <br /> 35 variance. Property use and parking needs have changed over time and they are <br /> 36 currently and would be within the code requirement in the future. The variance is <br /> 37 required for operational reasons to minimize the impact on parking and traffic at shift <br /> 38 change. The owner did not create circumstances causing the hardship. The <br /> 39 configuration of the building, parking and the corner lot are unique. The variance would <br /> 40 not alter the essential characteristics of the locality and would still be consistent with the <br /> 41 industrial district and neighboring properties. Economic considerations alone are not the <br /> 42 basis for the hardship. The property is currently within compliance with City code and <br /> 43 additional parking stalls would not be for primary economic benefits such as customers. <br /> 44 Circumstances are unique to this lot in that it is fronted on three sides by a public right <br /> 45 of way. The owner is making significant gestures to the City to turn back some existing <br /> 46 paved area that improves public safety and provides an environmental benefit. Granting <br />