2000-085 Not Adopted - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

392 The proposed project is not allowed in the Professional zoning district and is therefore inconsistent with the existing General Plan Designation of Professional Administrative Office. Section 5. Application for Variance No. 00-10 is hereby denied, for the following reasons That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, that the strict application of the zoning ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges not otherwise at variance with the intent and purpose of the provisions of this chapter. There are no special circumstances applicable to the subject property that would justify the support of the proposed variance. The subject site is 0.56 acres and is a standard rectangle shape. The site is fiat and measures 97 feet wide by 250 feet long without any unusual topography. The strict application of the zoning ordinance does not deprive the subject property of privileges not otherwise at variance with the intent and purpose of the provisions of this chapter. The last use of this property was a restaurant, which met City parking requirements. That the granting of a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. The applicant is proposing to occupy a building with a use that is very parking intense per City code requirements. There are less intense uses that are permitted in the building that would be approved by the City that does not generate the same parking demand as an assembly type use. Since there are other uses that could operate within the subject building and comply with city code and parking requirements, the granting of the proposed variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to surrounding property. The project as proposed is under parked and does not meet City parking requirements for a lodge use. A total of 72 parking spaces are required for the project while 46 parking spaces have been provided. The applicant is requesting a 26 space or 35 percent parking reduction. Based upon the shortage of parking proposed for this project and the potential for parking to spill over into the adjacent residential neighborhood, this project should be denied. Overflow parking has the potential to spill over onto adjacent property or into the surrounding residential neighborhood, which would be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to surrounding property. Resolution No. 2000-085 Page 4 of 5