Laserfiche WebLink
<br />chained area could be so that Building 5 could have the flexibility they needed. Ms. David <br />was willing to do this. <br /> <br />Commissioner Wright referred to Condition 10 and noted that sin <br />since 1985, the owner of No-Sweat Salon should have been made <br />Ms. David said the owner was made aware of the matter at the b <br /> <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. <br /> <br /> <br />the situation has existed <br />ware of the restriction. <br />inning of her tenancy. <br /> <br />Commissioner Mahem suggested that a gate might be installed th could be locked and that <br />perhaps an entry card could be given to the patrons of No-Sweat alon. She is afraid that if <br />they extend the hours until 9 p,m. that would encourage the Popi unge patrons to use that <br />lot. That was the rationale of using the chain in the first place, he would also like to see <br />some kind of information presented to tenants before they become tenants so they are aware <br />of what the parking situation is and have no cause to come back the Commission. <br /> <br />Discussion ensued as to whether a gate was feasible or not. <br /> <br /> <br />Commissioner Horan noted for the record that he likes to support e businesses in the center <br />in every way possible, he would personally favor a locked wroug t iron gate on Area 4. <br /> <br />~- <br /> <br />Commissioner Mahem said she would like to accommodate Port~ lio Property because of the <br />economic climate, but also felt they had made a commitment to th neighbors. She could not <br />support removal of the time restrictions. <br /> <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Mahem, seconded by Com issioner McGuirk (1) <br />finding that the modified PUD would remain consistent with the r uired PUD fmdings as <br />listed in the staff report; (2) recommending approval of Case PU -85-10-1M subject to the <br />conditions listed in Exhibit B relative to Condition 12 of Ordinanc No, 1227 pertaining to <br />the elimination of the 21,335 sq, ft. limit on high parking demand uses; and (3) <br />recommending denial of the application relative to Condition 10 0 Ordinance No. 1227 <br />pertaining to the parking control and time restrictions in the La P tite Academy parking area, <br />with the following modifications: <br /> <br />o Modify Condition 3 so that the high parking deman users be identified and <br />that prior to tenancy they are subject to a condition use permit that can be <br />administered by staff to review the parking situatio ; and <br />o Add a condition that would make the gating to area 4 of a more substantial <br />nature in terms of a metal fence or gate that shall b locked at 7:30 p.m. <br /> <br />ROLL CALL VOTE <br />AYES: Commissioners Mahem, McGuirk, Wright, and Ch 'rman Hovingh <br />NOES: Commissioner Horan <br />ABSENT: Commissioner Michelotti <br />ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br />Minutes Planning Commission <br />May 27, 1992 <br /> <br />Page 13 <br />