14 - Laserfiche WebLink

• As indicated in the Initial Study/Negative Declaration prepared for the project, all potential environmental impacts associated with the project (including noise and traffic) would be less than significant with implementation of conditions of approval. • The convenience market with beer and wine sales, and the carwash would be conditionally permitted, meaning that the City could impose additional conditions on these uses if unexpected problems were to materialize in the future. After the Planning Commission hearing, staff reviewed the recommended conditions of approval for the Conditional Use Permit (Case P14-0014) and found that Condition No. 3 (below) addressed the Commission's motion to allow the Conditional Use Permit to be re-reviewed should problems arise. 3. If operation of the convenience market and the drive-through carwash results in conflicts pertaining to parking, noise, traffic, crime or drunken behavior, or other impacts, at the discretion of the Director of Community Development, this conditional use permit may be referred to the Planning Commission for subsequent review at a public hearing. If necessary, the Planning Commission may modify or add conditions of approval to mitigate such impacts, or may revoke said conditional use permit. As such, a new condition is not necessary. PUD FINDINGS Please refer to the attached Planning Commission staff report, pages 21-24, for a discussion of the findings needed to approve the proposed PUD development plan. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS Please refer to the attached Planning Commission staff report, pages 24-25, for a discussion of the findings needed to approve the proposed Conditional Use Permit. PUBLIC NOTICE Notices regarding the proposed applications were mailed to the surrounding property owners and tenants within a 1,000-foot radius of the project site. A map showing the noticing area is attached to this report. The public notice was also published in The Valley Times. Copies of the emails, along with emails and petitions (both in support and in opposition) submitted to the Planning Commission, are included in Attachments 8 and 9. Staff will forward to the City Council any additional public comment received after publication of the staff report. Staff has also received additional petitions in support of the proposed development from the applicant that were submitted after the August 27, 2014 Planning Commission hearing (Attachment 12). Page 6 of 7