CC MIIN 1976 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

'434 P}anning Director Schroeter described the background relating to the sub�ect appeal, noting that the appellant, King & Adams, made use of the sub�ect structure as a temporary real estate office for five years commencing in 1966, having been granted a use permit for two years and one two-year and two six-month extens�on until 1971 at which time they moved into their present building at 3221 Jefferson. Mr. Schroeter re- ferred to item (7) in the appeal letter which suggests "the City em- � phatically stated in 1971 that no additional Use Permits would be granted at that location," explaining that at the time the last ex- tension was granted, a Planning Commission member had stated that too many extensions had been granted to the appellant, but King & Adams � did receive the extension Mr. Schroeter observed that there are some chan9ed circumstances in the area, with red curbing added and a building on the corner ad�acent to the property, and in response to question, advised that in granting the use permit to the applicant, the Planning Commission knew that the parking standards of the zoning distr�ct would be met by Wright and Company. Discuss�on followed concerning the parking requirements, the manner in which the applicant might be expected to meet parking requirements during construction of his new office, the possible strain on parking facilities while convert�ng to the new parking lot ldyout; and the fact that the Planning Gommission could have requlred additional park- ing, but not less, and did not do so. James Adams 3699 Brandy Rock Way, realtor of King & Adams, referred to his appeal letter of May 22, 1976 and to a wall map depicting the area under discussion Mr. Adams stated that he �s concerned about the parking situat�on. Mr. Adams read a letter from a dentist in the � neighborhood supporting the appeal, and showed photographs taken today of traffic in the area Mr. Adams also ob�ected to use of the old structure on an interim basis for six months. Sam Wright, President of Wright and Company Realtors, Inc:, the appl�- cant, suggested a misunderstanding may exist, advising that his company is purchasing four lots (three Professional Office and one Residential) and anticipates plenty of parking will be available on , the site when the new building is constructed. Mr. Wright stated that � the present paved pad will accommodate only six cars, however, the company intends to put rock on the residential lot during construction and later blacktop the large new parking area for about 25 cars. Mr. Wright stated that it is important to his company to establish an initial usage of the 'site by refurbishing and using the present structure in the same manner as ts often done by financial institu- tions. Mr. Wright offered to stipulate that his company would create a hard parking surface for the addit�onal cars during construction, but requested that they not be required to blacktop it in order to avoid a patchy appearance later Discussion followed and Mr. Wright replied to questions concerning details of his plans for construction, the fact that he anticipates commenc�ng construct�on as soon as possible; the possibility of satis- fying the ob�ections of the appellant to the suggested inadequacy of the present parking area, and the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance ' with regard to parking. _3- , � Reg.Mtg. _ 6/14/76 v , � .� , , , . .. w _.. � _ <. _ ,�. _ s. _ . � , ,