Laserfiche WebLink
compatibility standards and design principles of the MEMU Overlay Zone <br />and will not be detrimental to the harmonious development of the city or <br />impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the MEMU Overlay <br />Zone. <br />F. The zoning designation for the subject property is Metro East Mixed Use <br />(MEMU) Overlay Zone (OZ-1) in the Active Urban sub -zone. <br />G. The Planning Commission determines that upon review of the project, it <br />cannot recommend granting the Site Plan Review approval as proposed <br />pursuant to Section 8.2 of the MEMU overlay district and determines that <br />the following finding has been established for Site Plan Review No. 2016- <br />03: <br />That the land use, site design, and operational considerations in the <br />proposed development plan have not been planned in a manner <br />that will result in a compatible and harmonious operation as <br />specified in Section 7 of the MEMU overlay district. Based upon <br />public hearing testimony and the two proposed variances, the site <br />design could have the potential to cause negative parking and <br />traffic impacts upon surrounding properties and development. <br />H. The Planning Commission determines that all of the findings required for <br />granting Variance No. 2017-05 pursuant to SAMC 41-638 could not be <br />made. Instead, the Planning Commission determines that the following <br />finding has been established for Variance No. 2017-05 (reduction in <br />parking): <br />1. That the granting of the variance will be detrimental to the public <br />welfare or injurious to surrounding property. The site does not meet <br />minimum parking requirements. Based upon public hearing <br />testimony and the proposed variance for reduced parking, the <br />project may potentially negatively impact traffic flow and impact <br />neighboring properties resulting in a detriment to the public. <br />I. The Planning Commission determines that all of the findings required for <br />granting Variance No. 2017-06 pursuant to SAMC 41-638 could not be <br />made. Instead, the Planning Commission determines that the following <br />finding has been established for Variance No 2017-06 (increased side <br />yard setback): <br />1. That there are no special circumstances applicable to the subject <br />property, including its size, shape, topography, location or <br />surroundings. The strict application of the zoning ordinance is not <br />found to deprive the subject property of privileges not otherwise at <br />variance with the intent and purpose of the provisions of the Zoning <br />Code. <br />Resolution No. 2017-46 <br />Page 2 of 3 <br />