Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Appeal No. 2005-02 <br />(Variance No. 2004-18) <br />August 1, 2005 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />The Commission expressed serious reservations about the expansion of the <br />center since the applicant was unable to maintain the center in good <br />repair and lacked control of the parking lot by allowing others the use <br />of the lot. As a result, the Commission concluded that the proposed <br />building expansion would exacerbate the existing lack of parking and <br />voted to deny the variance request. <br /> <br />Subsequently, an appeal application was filed by Regency Centers on March <br />9, 2005 (Exhibit B). A notice of violation to correct illegal conditions <br />on the center was issued on March 14, 2005 (Exhibit C) . <br /> <br />On May 2, 2005, the City Council held a public hearing and received <br />public testimony on the appeal request. Members of the Council echoed <br />the Planning Commission concerns about maintenance, code violations and <br />potential lack of parking. The Council continued this item to allow the <br />applicant the opportunity to rectify the identified violations, to <br />implement measures to improve the center's maintenance, and to evaluate <br />the applicant's strategies to regain control of the parking. <br /> <br />Staff has conducted periodic visits to monitor the site. Missing <br />landscaping and seasonal color has been planted throughout the site. In <br />addition, portions of the parking lot have been re-surfaced and re- <br />striped. Illegal temporary signage and outdoor storage have been <br />removed. While staff has reviewed applications for three sign permits, <br />including one for the illegal monument sign, no sign permits have been <br />issued at this time. Finally, other violations, such as operating <br />outdoor vending machines, youth rides, and exterior telephones without <br />the proper permits have not been corrected. Lastly, the applicant has <br />submitted a revised parking study, which concludes that during the peak <br />periods, a minimum of 150 surplus parking spaces were available in the <br />front parking lot (Exhibit D). This study is consistent with the study <br />reviewed by the Planning Commission (Exhibit 6 of Planning Commission <br />staff report) . <br /> <br />FISCAL IMPACT <br /> <br />There is no fiscal impact associated with this action. <br /> <br />~no <br />~~~i~~e~~rector <br /> <br />Planning & Building Agency <br /> <br />LL:rb <br />11\reportS\PC&ZA\va04-18.08-1-0S.cc-appeal <br /> <br />55A-2 <br />