pf10-002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

io6 107 utilize the existing parking areas would have additional impacts on parks, streets, and other public facilities. �oB c. Compatibility ... with contiguous properties: If the parking areas remained, the �oy site plan and internal traffic circulation would not adversely affect nearby private � � o property, but the size and location of these parking areas makes it necessary for 11'I motorists to back in from the street or back out onto the street because there is no 11'L space for vehicles to enter in a forward direction, turn around within the property � � 3 boundaries, and exit in a forward direction. It is predominantly this need to back � � a into or out of the parking areas that has the greatest potential to create traffic 115 hazards in the area. � � 6 d. Impact of the use on the market value of contiguous properties: Planning 1 17 Division staff believes that leaving the parking areas in place would not impact � �� the market value of surrounding properties. 119 e. 120 121 � 2z f. 123 Impact on the general public health, safety, and welfare: City staff has determined that the potential traffic conflicts related to the continued use of the existing parking areas needlessly compromise the public safety. Compatibility with the City's Comprehensive Plan: Business uses and the attendant parking facilities are compatible with the City's Comprehensive Plan. 124 6.0 PUBLIC HEARING 125 126 127 12F3 129 130 131 13'L 133 134 6.1 The duly-noticed public hearing for this application was begun on January 6, 2010. Earlier that same day, however, the applicant had requested an extension to the 60 day action timeline to allow more time to gather information in support of the application; because insufficient time remained to provide public notice of the change of schedule, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing and allowed the one person in attendance to comment on the proposal and recommendation as represented in the staff report prepared for review in case that individual was unable to attend when the hearing was continued at a later date. Immediately following the comments, the public hearing was continued until the February 3r`� meeting date, without formal review or discussion of the application and staff recommendation. i 35 6.2 Through the remainder of January, a handful of email messages were traded by the � 3s applicant and Planning Division staff in which tentative arrangements were made to meet 137 and discuss the applicant's supplemental information in advance of the continuation of � s� the public hearing on February 3, 2010. In the end, none of the potential meeting dates 139 appeared to work for the applicant. 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 6.3 On February 3, 2010 the Planning Commission resumed the public hearing to review and discuss the proposed CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT; the applicant was not present and one additional member of the public was in attendance to watch the proceedings without commenting. At the conclusion of the public hearing, held to consider the proposal and the related public comment, the Planning Commission voted unanimously (i.e., 5-0) to deny to the request; draft minutes of the public hearing are included with this staff report as Attachment G. 147 6.4 A day after the public hearing, the applicant again contacted Planning Division staff to � a� admit his continuing misapprehension of the public hearing date and to express his hope PF10-002 RCA 022210 Page 4 of 5 � ^