Laserfiche WebLink
2k)ning File #1%0 <br />Ock>ber 12. 1994 <br />Page 2 <br />parkine loC addition if appro>td and do the required drainage improvements, or will dHX>sc to <br />delav (or perhaps withdraw) their request They are aware that this drainage problem will <br />just "go away", and that in the future they wixild likely be requested to pay their fair sf-tre <br />towards a resolution to the pn>blem if it is not resolved now. <br />Please again revkw the memo and exhibits of September 13. and coiKludc whether there <br />is substantial hardship and justification for granting the hardcover variance to expand the parking <br />lot, and if si>. attach approprute conditions. <br />Conditional I’sc Permit for Additions <br />Planning Commission brietly reviewed the recent church structure additions which were <br />issued building permits but for which staff did not call out the need for a conditional use permit. <br />Planning Commission members noted the lO' x 11’ coat room addition and the 18 x 22 carport <br />(located 47 ’ from the east property lira: where a 50’ setback is required) are mn inappropriate <br />for the site and are less of an issue than the parking lot concerns. <br />If Plannini! Commission concludes that these additions can remain, it would then be <br />appropriate to have the applicant amend the current application, pay an additional $50 fee for <br />the side setback variance, and incorp^'ralc approval into the tlnal Resolution if the parking lot <br />is approved. If the parking lot is not approved, then the CUP/variance for additions would be <br />a separate Resolution document. <br />Stuff Kecummendation <br />If Planning Commission recommends approval ot the variances for the parking lot <br />expansion, approval should be conditioned on: <br />1. Applicants to complete drainage improvements per City Fngincer ’s recommendation. <br />2. Parking stall layout schematic he provided and the lot be striped according to that <br />schematic. <br />If Planning Commission concludes that the carport setback of 47 ’ is appropriate and the <br />twi) recent additions are also appropriate, then a recommendation lor approval should include <br />the condition that the applicants amend their application by paying the $50 incremental fee for <br />the setback variance. <br />Referring to Issue (f6 on Page 4 of the September 13 memo. Planning Commission may <br />recommend whether the applicants should be required to grant a 15’ road easement per the 1970 <br />CUP discussions and preliminary approval (see Exhibit H of 9-13-94 memo).