Laserfiche WebLink
251 <br /> <br /> It was moved by Mr. Brandes, and seconded by Mr. Butler, <br />that Resolution No. 89-357 be adopted, denying'the appeal and <br />denying Case V-89-10, the application of D~niel and Mary Davis for <br />a variance from the Municipal Code to allow the construction of a <br />garage structure that will encroach into the required side yard <br />setback, and a fence over 30" in height on the property line <br />located at 4122 Nevis Street. <br />The roll call vote was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmembers Brandes, Butler, Mohr, Tarver, and Mayor <br /> Mercer <br />NOES: None <br />ABSENT: None <br />ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br />Item 6e <br />Reconsideration of Action Taken to Adopt Resolution No. 89-280, <br />denying PUD-85-8-4D, Application of Retail Property Development <br />Company for design review.approval to construct a two-building, <br />approximately 34,900 sq. ft., retail commercial complex to be <br />located on an approximately 3.2 acre site located on the north <br />side of Owens Drive approximately 400 ft. east of the <br />intersection of Chabot Drive and Owens Drive <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift presented his report (SR 89:288) regarding the <br />matter. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer declared the public hearing open on the <br />application. <br /> <br /> There being no testimony, Mr. Mercer declared the public <br />hearing closed. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler indicated that he was never opposed to the layout <br />or design of the structure but that initially he was not convinced <br />that the use was appropriate to the shopping center. He added <br />that he has had the chance to reconsider the details of the use <br />and the alternatives that exist within the zoning of the property <br />and is now in favor of the application. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brandes stated that the business would deal with home <br />furnishings and recommended that the user be restricted from <br />having delivery or service vehicles parked on the property <br />overnight as this would destroy the entire complex. He said that <br />he had talked to the applicants, and they were willing to abide by <br />that restriction. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver mentioned that he was still against this <br />application for the same reasons that it is inconsistent with the <br />original PUD. <br /> <br /> -12- <br /> <br /> 8-15-89 <br /> <br /> <br />