Laserfiche WebLink
3. <br />4. <br />The Plaiming Commission reviewed this application at a public hearings <br />held on March 15, 2004 and April 19, 2004 and recommended approval of <br />the conditional use permit and commercial site plan review with <br />associated variances based on the following findings: <br />a. The existing building is non-conforming at a north side setback of 24 <br />feet. The applicant’s proposed addition will not increase that non- <br />conforming 24’ setback. <br />b.The existing 3-scason porch, which is non-conforming at a setback of <br />15 ’ when 35 ’ is required on the north side setback, will be leniovcd or <br />moved to a c<^nforming location in an effort to reduce non- <br />confomiitics. <br />c. On-site parking could not be provided without a rear yard parking <br />setback variance due to the location of the existing building, the <br />required building and parking setbacks, and the small area of the lot. <br />d. In order to meet parking requirements for a Class 1 restaurant the <br />applicant has the rights to use the City-owned parking facility in the <br />rear of property. <br />c. The applicant’s property was reduced in size when the Cit^ owned <br />parking facility was constructed. <br />f. The applicant’s proposal meets structural coverage and hardcover <br />requirements. <br />g. The exterior finishes proposed, consisting of white chilton stone and a <br />tanish-browTi hardyboard plank siding, were acceptable for the u.se <br />proposed. <br />The City Council has considered this application including the findings <br />imd recommendation of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, <br />comments by the applicants and the public, and the effect of the proposed <br />conditional use permit and commercial site plan approval with associated <br />variances on the health, safety and welfare of the community. <br />Page 2 of 6