PC 111203 - Laserfiche WebLink

residents or tenants. Staff suggested that the northem door" "V'Vhich is directly opposite the residential area." rLot be "L1sed; the rLorth"V'Vestem door did not face the residents_ Prior to the -vvriting of the staff report, the applicant representative indicated that they agreed vv-ith that condition. HoVV"ever" the applicant has since stated that they vvould prefer not to be restricted in. that manner and that they vvould like to use both doors. They agreed to keep the doors closed during sessions" VV"ith the exception of:~ ingress and egress. Staff considered that request to be acceptable and suggested chnnging the condition vv-ith respect to that issue. If noise ever became a problem.,. staff may bring the use permit back to the Commission to address the issue_ l.V1:r. Iserson ad-vised that parkiI1g VV"as carefu-Ily examined by staff as an. issu.e of concem to the adjaceI1t tenant_ The b-uilding vvas origin.ally built VV"ith 149 parking spaces" but a n.-umber of the spaces had been elimin.ated o-ver time to accommodate vario-us tenants; 100 spaces c-urrently exist Tor the building. Regarding parking space allocation based on sq-uare footage of the building,. the use "V'Vould have 12 spaces vv-here 55 spaces are required by Code. StaffVV"ould examine the actual operation", needs of the adjacent tennnts", a..nd the possibility of adding parking spaces. The applicant submitted a parking analysis vvhich indicated that at an.y one time,. there vv-ould be a maximum of30 to 35 cars parked in the lot regardless of the size of the congregation. The applican.t noted that the activities vv-ere distrib-uted throughout the day ar1d that at other times" there vvo-uld be 12 to 15 cars_ Staff belie-ved that there vvould be a parking deman.d for 95 spaces oI1site vvhere 100 spaces exist_ .l\I1:r. Iserson noted that a letter from the property o"VVIl.ers'" representative "VVas submitted stating that they vvere in agreement ~th the condition to create addition.al parking spaces if necessary _ Staff belie-ved that the parkir:Lg should be sufficient to accommodate the existing use as "V'Vell as any expected future grovvth. .l\I1:r. Iserson advised that Brian. C)"'Toole preferred that the additional parking spaces be restriped and made available at the outset. Staff felt comfortable VV"ith using the existing parkin.g spaces. In addition,. :rv1.:r. C)"'Toole preferred an expiration. date on the use permit. Staff belie-ved that "V'Vith the conditions of appro-val", the activities may be controlled and the use permit may be brought back if necessary. Staff VV"as not comfortable "VVith t:.he r::Lotion. of a..n expiration of the use permit "",hich is not typically done. The Commission ma.y "V\T:ish to re"Vievv t:he "t..I.se i11 se"Vera.1 years. l'Vlr. O'Toole felt that the use permit should only be valid for the applicant and vvould not be valid for a change ofovvnership_ Staffvvished to point out that vvas not a legal vvayof har1dling permits,. "V'Vhich run. VV"ith the la:n.d. If a similar religio-us institution vvere to fill the space,. it "VVould be allovv-ed to assume the use permit if it met the para.rn.eters and agreed to abide by the conditions. Staff believed that the -use "VVould be compatible vvith surrounding uses ar1d neighbors an.d filled a need in the community. He suggested modifying condition 5 to read,. ......The PLANNING COl'Vll'VlISSION" l'VlINUTES November 12,2003 Page 3