My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02/23/1998
Clerk
>
Minutes
>
Planning Commission
>
1998
>
02/23/1998
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/3/2012 12:58:24 PM
Creation date
1/27/2011 2:12:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PBA
Doc Type
Minutes
Date
2/23/1998
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
PUBLIC HEARINGS <br />PUBLIC HEARINGS <br />ROLL CALL 7:00 p.m. <br />PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG <br />PROCEDURAL RULES <br />VARIANCE NO. 97-16 <br />Filed by Behrooz Azazian to allow a perimeter fence and gate and 105 compact pazking spaces to <br />remain located at 1001 West Steven in the Suburban Apartment (R4) zoning district. <br />(Continued by the Planning Commission January 26, 1998 to February 23, 1998) <br />LEGALLY NOTICID: January 16, 1998 <br />PUBLICLY NOTICID: January 1S, 1998 <br />RECOMMENDATION: <br />Adopt a resolution denying Variance No. 97-16. <br />Ms. Melanie McCann, Assistant Planner II, provided an overview of the staff report, background of <br />the issue, and recommendation. <br />Mc John May, representing South Coast Terrace, displayed pictures of the site and informed the <br />Commission that the previous fence had been replaced due to deterioration. He further indicated that <br />the current property owners believed that the new fence deters criminal activity within the complex <br />and increased property values. He also stated that the parking area had been re-paved and was <br />approximately six to eight inches narrower than the previous pazking spaces and the compact spaces <br />accommodated the pazking demand at the complex. <br />Mr. Adams apprised the Commission that a building permit had been applied for and approved in <br />1979 for a five foot fence. Approximately, in 1994, the applicant requested to replace the previously <br />approved five foot fence with a six foot fence; the request was denied and the applicant was directed <br />to apply for a vaziance for the six foot fence. However, the applicant chose to construct a six foot <br />wall without the appropriate discretionary approvals or building permits. <br />Ms. Dorothy Newhouse, resident, indicated that she was in opposition to staff's recommendation and <br />stated that the previous fence was in very poor condition. The property owners bought their <br />condominiums with the present fence presuming that the fence was legal and that the fence provided <br />additional safety for the local residents. <br />Motion to adopt a resolution for Variance No. 97-I6 indicating the following: <br />Approving a variance from Section 41-610 for the permiter fence and gate. <br />2. Denying a variance from Section 4l -1303 for the compact parking spaces. <br />MOTION: Mondo SECOND: Nalle <br />AYES: Verino, MacDowell, Nalle, Solorio, and Mondo <br />NOES: None <br />ABSENT: None <br />ABSTAIN: Doughty <br />2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC. <br />' (For matters not previously listed on the Aeendal <br />There were no oral comments made. <br />4. EXCUSE OF ABSENCES. <br />There were no absences. <br />PLINNINO CONAllSSION MINUTES J FFbRUARY 73, 1998 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.