Laserfiche WebLink
<br />REQUEST FOR <br />COUNCIL ACTION <br /> <br />4--~ <br />~ <br /> <br />~~"catl()n ls;~ <br />r" <br /> <br /> <br />CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: <br /> <br />CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: <br /> <br />AUGUST 1, 2005 <br /> <br />TITLE: <br />APPEAL NO. 2005-02 (VARIANCE NO. <br />2004-18) TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED ON- <br />SITE PARKING FOR FAMSA AT 419 EAST <br />FIRST STREET - REGENCY CENTERS, <br />APPLICANT <br /> <br />APPROVED <br /> <br />o As Reeommended <br />o As Amended <br />o Ordinanee on 1st Reading <br />o Ordinance on 2nd Reading <br />o Implementing Resolution <br />o Set Public Hearing For <br /> <br />CONTINUED TO <br /> <br />iN~~~1J.~ <br /> <br />CITY MANAGER <br /> <br />FILE NUMBER <br /> <br />RECOMMENDED ACTION <br /> <br />1. Deny Appeal No. 2005-02. <br /> <br />2. Adopt a resolution denying Variance No. 2004-18. <br /> <br />PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION <br /> <br />On February 28, 2005, the Planning Commission denied Variance No. 2004-18 <br />by a vote of 7:0 to reduce the required on-site parking for the expansion <br />of FAMSA Department Store located in the General Commercial (C2) and <br />Arterial Commercial (C5) zoning districts at 419 East First Street <br />(Exhibit A) <br /> <br />DISCUSSION <br /> <br />On February 14, 2005, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and <br />received public testimony on the variance request. Concerns with the <br />general lack of maintenance of the center, which included trash <br />accumulation on the site, buildings in need of repainting, and <br />substandard and missing landscape material were raised. In addition, the <br />Commission noted that the recommended conditions of approval included the <br />correction of several items that were code violations, such as the <br />removal of an illegal sign, the repair of paving and the re-striping of <br />the parking lot. Finally, the Commission observed that the center's <br />design restricted customers' access to all parking areaSi a design <br />limitation was not taken into consideration in the shared parking <br />analysis. The Commission noted that while the rear employee parking lot <br />may be underutilized as described in the parking study, the customer <br />parking area in the front of the commercial center was severely impacted, <br />as confirmed by the applicant. <br /> <br />55A-1 <br />