Laserfiche WebLink
72 the contrary opinion that a B- I B district would allow certain high-traffic uses that would <br />73 not be compatible with the Limited Business designation of the Comprehensive Plan. <br />74 6.4 The quest on was raised at the public hearing as to how the current rezoning application <br />75 differs from the recently approved Planned Unit Development (PUD Amendment at the <br />716 nearby 1940 Lexington Avenue property (PF07-050). Consideration of land uses <br />77 appropriate for 1940 Lexington Avenue was limited to those low traffic uses that were <br />78 consistent with the existing PUD agreement — that is, consistent with what is effectively <br />79 the existing izoning on the property — whereas the current application seeks to change the <br />a 10 <br />80 'existing zoning n a way that differs from the current zoning but that is nonetheless <br />81 consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. <br />82 6.5 As part of the minutes from the public hearinl& the statement from the "Foes of Autumn <br />83 Street Traffic" is 'included with this packet as part of Attachment F. This statement cites <br />84 1§ 1004.0 1 F(l) of the City Code which establishes a policy of maintain ing high standards <br />85 of residential development and protecting residential areas from certain "deleterious <br />816 effects."' It is important to note that this code section, titled Residence Relocations, de als <br />C% 0 <br />87 specifically with ensuring that new and relocated homes satisfy applicable requirements, <br />88 the policies of this section do not pertain to commercial development adjacent to <br />89 residential areas. <br />go 6.6 Althougb this application, doesn't represent "new development" per se, the property <br />91 owner could be required to 'Install screening consistent with that contemplated in <br />92 1§1005.01G �(Buffer Zones) of the City Code. Some members of the Planning Commission <br />93 advocated for "'green"' screening (eg., spruce tTees) instead of a wooden privacy fence in <br />,914 order to reduce the visual impact on the adjacent residential property; Planning Division <br />95 staff beli eves that a, combination of fencing and vegetation would best accompl ish the <br />96 goals of screening the commercial use while creating a visually pleasing buffer. <br />97 7,0 REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CRITERIA <br />98 7.1 The proposed catering use is a conditionally permitted use in B- I B zoning district. The <br />199 discussion below is therefore limited to the catering use and its marginal impacts over <br />'100 any permitted uses. <br />loi 7.2 Section 1013.0 1 (Conditional Use Permits) of the City Code requires the Planning <br />102 Commission and City Council to consider the following criteria when reviewing a CUP <br />103 applicationo <br />104 a.. Impact on traffic; <br />105 b* Impact on parks, streets, and other public facifit:ICS4 <br />106 co, Compatibility of the site plan, internal traffic circulation, landscaping, and <br />107 structures with contiguous properties; <br />108 d1b Impact of the use on the market value of contiguous properties-, <br />11019 elb Impact on the general public health, safety, and welfare; and <br />110 fo, Compatility with the City's Comprehensive Plan. <br />ill 7.3 Impact otl traffie: While the ITE manual, the publication that provides research data on <br />112 the traffic generated by a given use, does not have "Information pertinent to catering <br />113 facilities, the Planning Division has determined that a catering facility would generate <br />P,F07-069 RCA 011408 <br />Page 3, of 5 <br />