Laserfiche WebLink
i <br />f <br />5. <br />#■■■ <br />VV <br />2005. On a 3-3 motion to deny, the application went forward to the City <br />Council without a recommendalion by the Planning Commission. The <br />City Council reviewed the application on March 28, 2005 and made the <br />following findings: <br />a. The space has been occupied by retail uses in the past, most notably a <br />beauty shop. <br />b. The surrounding neighborhood will not be negatively impacted by the <br />introduction of this additional new use. <br />c. The bwduty shop/salon use is a permitted use under the B - I, Retail <br />Sales Business District zoning regulations. <br />d. Access for this use will be through the rear of the building across the <br />property to the east. Invitees of the proposed use will be permitted this <br />acccjs under a Parking Space License Agreement. <br />e. The shortage of required parking will be accommodated by a shared <br />parking arrangement with the property owner to the east. <br />f. The signage proposed complies with Zoning Ordinance Section 78- <br />1468. <br />The City Council has conside.ed this application including the findings <br />and recommendation of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, <br />comments by the aj^licants and the public, and the effect of the proposed <br />commercial site plan review and occupancy on the health, s^ety and <br />welfare of the community. <br />The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are <br />peculiar to it and do not apply generally to oth«‘ property in this zoning <br />district; that granting the commercial site plan review and occupancy <br />would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire <br />hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as <br />a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a <br />table hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial <br />Page 2 of 6