CC Min 1994-08-15 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

"5. That the site plan be improved per revised site plans submitted on May 25, 194, to the Planning Division." 5. Appellant's main contention regarding the restroom facilities relies upon Applicant's initial assertion that the owner or operator of an automobile service station (operated under the Shell Oil Company designation) located on a parcel ofland adjacent to the Property would permit use of its restroom facilities for Applicant's employees and, presumably, patrons, of the Project. Appellant contends that such facilities would not meet the requirements of the Federal Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA"). 6. During the pendency of the appeal, the Zoning Administrator was informed that the alleged permission to use the service station's restroom facilities had not been granted. 7. Provision of requisite restroom facilities is governed by pertinent provisions of 24 Cat. Code of Regulations ("CCR"). Under those regulations a single restroom facility may be provided for the Project, in that four or less persons will be employed in its operation. (24 CCR S705[c]). The facility need not be located within the structure pertaining to the Project, but may be provided within the shopping center within which the Project is to be located (id.). The restroom facilities must be accessible and usable by persons with disabilities (24 CCR S31 02A). 8. Under the use permit as issued by the Zoning Administrator, Applicant must comply with the foregoing code requirements for restroom facilities, including compliance with ADA requirements (Use Permit, condition 3, supra). 9. Appellant's contention regarding alleged traffic congestion is based on the premise that a vehicle in one approach lane to the Project could cause a back-up of traffic on Woodside Road and that no provision has been made for diversion of additional vehicles from the approach lane. The site plan for the Project provides two approach lanes to the Project structure. Vehicles in the approach lanes have access to the internal traffic lanes of the shopping center parking lot, which access will permit operators of vehicles to maneuver within the parking lot area, if necessary, to avoid a back-up oftraffic on Woodside Road. to. Appellant's contention regarding the alleged potential use of a roof sign appears to be based upon the premise that Applicant may attempt to convert an architectural feature on the structure pertaining to the Project into a sign. No facts have been adduced which would support that contention. The use permit as issued by the Zoning Administrator adequately addresses any potential misuse of the aforesaid feature (Use Permit, condition 2, supra). CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER A. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the use permitted under the use permit as issued by the Zoning Administrator, with conditions, will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use, nor will said establishment, maintenance or operation be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare ofthe City. Regular Meeting Minutes MINUTE BOOK NO. 52 August 15, 1994 Page No. 356 Page 4