MO 94-192 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

o o "2. That the Applicant obtain an Architectural Permit for the proposed structure, including all proposed signage prior to release of the Building Permit. Roof signs are disallowed. Any additional signage shall require approvals from the Planning Division. "3. That the Applicant maintain, for the duration of subject operation, valid agreements from applicable parties for the utilization of adjoining bathroom facilities. These shall be available to customers and employees during the business hours of the subject operation. "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 of land 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 pendence 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 of24 Cal. 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 8705[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 of traffic on Woodside Road. 10. 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.