Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #1960 <br />September 13, 1994 <br />Page 3 <br />Recent Additions <br />The church applied for and was granted a building permit for a lO'xl 1' coat room addition and <br />a 14'xl8’ carpon in December 1993. Imfortunatel), the inspectkins department did not call out <br />the rjced for a cortditional use permit, which normally would be required for siKh additions. <br />This error only came to light during the current parking lot review. Additionally, the church <br />constructed the caiTvrt to extend 22’ cast from the building rather than the 14’ proposed, and <br />that carport is now 47’ from the cast property line where a 50' setback w»>uld ncmnally be <br />required for any church structure c.xisting as a conditional use permit in a residential zoiw. <br />Since the constrtKted carp«m diHfs not meet the parameters of what was approved, it would be <br />reasonable to require the carport to be reconfigured to meet the 50* setback Technically, tlie <br />City should also require the formality of the church filing a conditional use permit application <br />for the expansions which have already been permitted. <br />Issues to Consider <br />1. Is there substantial hardship and justification for granting a hardcover variance to expand <br />the parking lot? <br />2. If the parking lot is allowed to expand, staff would recommend tliat a parking stall layout <br />schematic be provided and that the lot required «o be striped. <br />3. <br />4. <br />5. <br />Since the parking lot expansion suggests expansion of a conditional use in a residential <br />zone, it can be argued that the parking lot expansion is in fact an amendment to the <br />original conditional use permit which was ba.sed on a specific site plan which is now’ <br />changing. Please review the 1970 discussions by Planning Commission and Council <br />reeardini! this conditional use. and note that at that time the practice was to approve <br />conditional use permits without a resolution. <br />If the parking lot is allowed to be expanded, proper drainage control facilities need to be <br />developed. It may be appropriate that .such facilities be designed to help alleviate <br />existing neighN>rhood drainage problems. <br />Regarding the additions constructed via a permit issued in error.; <br />Should the church be required to file an aftcr-the-fact conditional use permit? <br />- Is there any reason why the City staff should not proceed to require the carport be <br />reconstructed tv> meet the 50 ’ setback? <br />t/.o