Laserfiche WebLink
-. .-. <br />72 the contrary opinion that a B-1B district would allow certain high-traffic uses that would <br />�s not be compatible with the Limited Business designation of the Comprehensive Plan. <br />�a 6.4 The question was raised at the public hearing as to how the current rezoning application <br />�5 differs from the recently approved Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment at the <br />�s nearby 1940 Lexington Avenue property (PFO7-o50). Consideration of land uses <br />�� appropriate for 1940 Lexington Avenue was limited to those low traffic uses that were <br />�8 consistent with the existing PUD agreement — that is, consistent with what is effectively <br />�9 the existing zoning on the property — whereas the current application seeks to change the <br />so existing zoning in a way that differs from the current zoning but that is nonetheless <br />s� consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. <br />s2 6.5 As part of the minutes from the public hearing, the statement from the "Foes of Autumn <br />s3 Street Traffic" is included with this packet as part of Attachment F. This statement cites <br />s4 § 1004.01 F(1) of the City Code which establishes a policy of maintaining high standards <br />s5 of residential development and protecting residential areas from certain "deleterious <br />86 effects." It is important to note that this code section, titled Residence Relocations, deals <br />8� specifically with ensuring that new and relocated homes satisfy applicable requirements; <br />ss the policies of this section do not pertain to commercial development adjacent to <br />ss residential areas. <br />so 6.6 Although 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 § 1005.01 G(Buffer Zones) of the City Code. Some members of the Planning Commission <br />93 advocated for "green" screening (e.g., spruce trees) instead of a wooden privacy fence in <br />94 order to reduce the visual impact on the adjacent residential property; Planning Division <br />95 staff believes that a combination of fencing and vegetation would best accomplish the <br />96 goals of screening the commercial use while creating a visually pleasing buffer. <br />97 <br />98 <br />99 <br />100 <br />101 <br />102 <br />103 <br />104 <br />105 <br />106 <br />107 <br />�os <br />109 <br />110 <br />111 <br />112 <br />113 <br />7.0 <br />7.1 <br />7.2 <br />7.3 <br />REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CRITERIA <br />The proposed catering use is a conditionally permitted use in B-1B zoning district. The <br />discussion below is therefore limited to the catering use and its marginal impacts over <br />any permitted uses. <br />Section 1013.01 (Conditional Use Permits) of the City Code requires the Planning <br />Commission and City Council to consider the following criteria when reviewing a CUP <br />application: <br />a. Impact on traffic; <br />b. <br />C. <br />d. <br />e. <br />f. <br />Impact on parks, streets, and other public facilities; <br />Compatibility of the site plan, internal traffic circulation, landscaping, and <br />structures with contiguous properties; <br />Impact of the use on the market value of contiguous properties; <br />Impact on the general public health, safety, and welfare; and <br />Compatility with the City's Comprehensive Plan. <br />Impact on traffic: While the ITE manual, the publication that provides research data on <br />the traffic generated by a given use, does not have information pertinent to catering <br />facilities, the Planning Division has determined that a catering facility would generate <br />PF07-069 RCA 011408 <br />Page 3 of 5 <br />