PC 021308 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Hodnefield noted that he needed the ability to manage his own parking lot and to adequately and appropriately give parking to people who have paid for it. Commissioner Olson believed that approach made sense. Jack Balch noted that his company owned the buildings directly adjacent to the appellant's building and added that he did not have the same parking issues with his tenants. He noted that he did not mark their parking spots, although he had considered it and was looking into posting signs for parking spots. He was concerned that the amended trellis as proposed by staff would provide a security breach to the roof of his building. He inquired as to the setback of that trellis and was concerned about the current thefts of copper and other items from rooftops. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chair Blank believed the issue went further than people taking the appellants' tenants' parking spots and understood the desire to have a covered parking spot out of the heat of the sun. He suggested modifying the conditions so that the security for the adjacent roof would be assured. He did not have any problems with the appellant's proposal since he owned the building, including marking parking spaces. Commissioner Narum agreed with Chair Blank's comments, particularly since the appellant owned the building. She agreed that there should be a setback from the trellis as it related to the adj acent building. Ms. Decker noted that any arrangement should involve the Planning Director or his designees to ensure that the design and setbacks were appropriate. Chair Blank suggested that the appellant be directed to work with the Planning Director to come up with a mutually acceptable design. Ms. Decker noted that staff would ensure that the setback between the buildings are appropriate. Commissioner Pearce moved to uphold the appeal PAP-114, subject to the conditions of approval in Exhibit B as modified by staff, with the deletion of Condition No. 9 prohibiting the applicant from reserving the parking spaces for specific tenants and the addition of a condition that the appellant work with staff to ensure that the construction of the carport does not affect the security of the neighboring property. Commissioner Olson seconded the motion. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, February 13, 2008 Page 40 of 42