2008_0114_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

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