10-11-1993 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. J Zoning File fflS6Q 0(|^r 7, 1993 PaSeT' applicant was asked to provide an amended site plan showing two additional off street parking stalls, review Exhibit N. At the time of the public hearing, there was no one in the audience who voiced a concern with the current proposal. Since that meeting, staff has received several phone calls from one adjacent neighbor who is concerned that the City could not enforce the various controls that were to be placed on the property. It is stafFs understanding that the neighbor will present a written commentary' at your meeting as he was unable to complete the statement for inclusion in your packet. From various discussions that I have had with the neighbor, the following concerns were raised: 1. 2. 3. All off street parking stalls were based on the maximum four bedroom use of the structure. Whjit if there are additional drivers with a total of five or six cars parked on propeny? There is currently no problem with Mrs. McKinney and her current renters. How do you control the park.ng of recreational vehicles or additional cars owned by owners or renters not used daily or storage of large equipment? Once the homestead credit is discontinued, how would the City be made aware if structure was not owner occupied? The conditional use permit can be written to limit off street permanent owner/renter parking to four oi five stalls. The second floor apartment could be limited to use of no more than two adults (two unrelated adults or couple with young children). The parking of recreational vehicles on limited site would not be allowed. The storage of equipment in yard is subject to existing ordinances of City. As for the issue of "owner occupied," staff would recommend that written controls similar to the ones adopted for the nonconforming use at 1960 Shoreline Drive be considered for this conditional use permit. Staff has provided various sections of the code to the neighbor specifically dealing with required standards for all conditional use pennits, controls on iionconiorming uses and the recommended controls developed for the current review. It is unfortunate that the neighbt'r did not raise these concerns during tlie Planning Commission review allowing tor input and directir)n from the Planning Commission. The City Engineer has been asked to review the updated site plan providing off street parking. In reviewing the various controls on off street parking for residential property, it would appear that parking adjacent to the garage stall doors would not be disallowed. The site plan shows four off street parking stalls not crediting the two within the garage. The proposed off street parking meets required setbacks for residential parking