AgdaPkt 2005-10-24 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

¿//f-5 under the impression that the operation of the lot at 150 EI Camino Real was improving. Subsequently, in October 2004, Planning staff learned that the lack of complaints in 2003 was actually not consistent with the neighbors' experience that year. In fact, several neighbors of 150 EI Camino Real submitted a range of complaints and evidence in the form of photographs and video of code violations to the Zoning Administrator. The Zoning Administrator reviewed the information, conducted multiple site visits including evenings and weekends, and worked with other City staff members that also had been called to the site. After a thorough review of the information, the Zoning Administrator held a public hearing on the use in November 2004 (after the conclusion of the pumpkin patch and before the commencement of the tree lot in that year). That public hearing resulted in modification to the Use Permit, which was issued with 43 Conditions of Approval. Staff has received input from neighbors that the impacts of the use were reduced, but that full compliance to the conditions of approval was not achieved and that the use continued to over-burden their low density single-family residential neighborhood and associated street system. With respect to concerns regarding the impacts of the use related to noise, lighting, signage, and sight distance, the Zoning Administrator has determined that they can probably be reduced to a less than significant level through strict compliance to appropriate Conditions of Approval. In fact, for example, site distance visibility issues were significantly resolved in 2004 through site plan modification. Be that as it may, other significant impacts remain, such as lack of parking, deliveries, duration of use, and enforcement of conditions. The Public Hearing was held on September 14,2005 and the Zoning Administrator denied the Use Permit on September 22,2005. Upon denial of the Use Permit, Planning staff met with the applicant to discuss other options with the business operator. Planning staff suggested alternative site locations which could be more appropriate for the subject use. Planning staff has had additional conversations with the property owner about the potential of relocating the proposed use to alternative sites. Appellant's Issues The appellant disagrees with the Zoning Administrators decision and feels that the Zoning Administrator's position is unsubstantiated. Additionally the appellant has stated that with the implementation of additional mitigation measures (see attachment 5), beyond the forty- three (43) conditions of approval established in the 2004 Notice of Official Action, the activities associated with the proposed use have been minimized and the benefits of the proposed use would out weigh the potential impacts to the community. Furthermore the appellant has provided a list of signatures from patrons supporting the continued operation of the proposed use. Analysis The following analysis considers the findings as referenced in the September 22, 2005 Notice of Official Action with respect to the subject property and proposed use. The appellant's issues are also addressed as they relate to the findings and discussion. 1. The establishment, maintenance, and operation of the proposed use would, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals, 5