Laserfiche WebLink
#OS-3149 <br /> - Septernber 19,2005 <br /> � Page 7 of 7 <br /> pt�oposed per��king expcc»sion in tl�e s�oz�tl��a�esl co��ner� of tl7e sile, J�equi�•i��g a fi�ont <br /> yar�d pcu�king l�aricrnce. Slcrff h�rs p�-o>>idec�co»zments regc�r•c�irrg il�e ea:istence of cr <br /> h�r��c�ship cn�c� the Plannif�g Co»amzssioi� slaoirld deter°»�iT�e 1-vhetl�er� t1�is eipandec� <br /> perrking cr�-eca shozrlcl be crlloti��ed. All othei° r�eqzrirements ���itl� respect to setbacks, <br /> bziilding heaght, s•ide crnd rea�� perr•kr.'r�g setb�reks, ete. ca�e p�•oposec� i�� a <br /> confor�ning n�crn»er. <br /> Issues for Consideration <br /> 1. Is the expanded parking in the southwest corner of the site acceptable at a 14' setback <br /> from the front property line? <br /> 2. Is there potential for adjacent property owners to be negatively impacted by the <br /> proposed expansions, whether it be building or parking expansions? <br /> 3. Are there aily other issues or concerns with this application? <br /> Staff Recommendation <br /> Staff recoirunends approval of the conditional use permit under the following <br /> stipulations: <br /> 1. The Planning Conu�lission should determine if a viable hardship exists to allow <br /> the expanded parking in the southwest corner of the site as a front yard parking <br /> setback variance would be required. <br /> 2. Prior to City Council review of the application, revised plans must be submitted <br /> incorporating the reconunendations of the City Engineer letter, attached to this <br /> report as E�ubit J. The applicant will also be required to comply with any other <br /> forthcoming conunents from the City Engineer. <br />