Laserfiche WebLink
' �4inute Order No. 85-ll�continued) • <br /> 8/15/85 <br /> iv. The appeal with respect to Condition #4 of the subject Use permit <br /> pertaining to the expansion of the on-site parking lot is granted on <br /> the grounds that the costs of compliance therewith are dispropor- _ <br /> tionate to the benefits to be gained by imposition of the Condition <br /> and the additional parking which would be provided thereby is not <br /> necessary becaus there is sufficient on-site parking in the vicinity <br /> of the parcel to be used as a day care center as well as adequate <br /> on-street parking. <br /> v. The appeal with respect to Condition #6 of the subject Use Permit is <br /> granted in that the improvsnents described therein (closure of one <br /> curb cut and reconstruction of curb and gutter) were intended to <br /> compliment the expanded parking lot in Condition #4, which Conditio <br /> has been deleted on the appeal. <br /> vi. The appeal with respect to Condition #7 of the subject Use Permit, <br /> requiring an Architectural Permit, is granted in that the purposes <br /> to be addressed thereby primarily related to Condition #4 which haas. <br /> been deleted on the appeal. <br /> vii. Conditions #2, #5, and #8, not having been appealed, shall remain as <br /> conditions to the Use permit as modified on appeal: <br /> City Attorney Schricker advised that Condition 1 relative.to removal of the <br /> illegal fence cannot be appealed. <br /> AMENDMENT: With the acceptance of Councilman Rhodes, Councilman Bury <br /> amended the motion to include Condition 3. ' <br /> CLARIFICATION: City Attorney Schricker advised that the motion as amended <br /> would result in granting the appeal on conditions 4, 6, and 7. <br /> The motion as amended carried unanimously by roll call vote. <br /> �� <br /> JACQUELINE C. HILDEBRAND <br /> City Clerk ' <br />