Laserfiche WebLink
<br />REQUEST FOR <br />COUNCIL ACTION <br /> <br />~~ <br />~~~- <br />~ <br /> <br />CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: <br /> <br />CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: <br /> <br />SEPTEMBER 6, 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 /> <br /> <br />APPLICANT aAa <br /> <br />CITY MANAGER <br /> <br />APPROVED <br /> <br />o As Recommended <br />o As Amended <br />o Ordinance 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 />FILE NUMBER <br /> <br />RECOMMENDED ACTION <br /> <br />1. Deny Appeal No. 2005-02. <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 />(Exhibi t A) . <br /> <br />DISCUSSION <br /> <br />On February 14, 2005, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and <br />received testimony on the variance request. Concerns were raised with <br />the 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. In addition, the Commission <br />noted that the recommended conditions of approval included the correction <br />of several items that were code violations, such as the removal of an <br />illegal sign, the repair of paving and the re-striping of the parking <br />lot. Finally, the Commission observed that the center's design <br />restricted customers' access to all parking areas; this design was not <br />taken into consideration in the initial shared parking analysis, though <br />it has been addressed in the revised analysis attached to this report. <br />The Commission noted that while the rear employee parking lot may be <br />underutilized as described in the parking study, the customer parking <br />area in the front of the commercial center was severely impacted. <br /> <br />The Commission expressed reservations about the expansion of the center <br />since the applicant was unable to maintain the center in good repair and <br />lacked control of the parking lot by allowing others the use <br /> <br />55A-1 <br />