PC 030905 - Laserfiche WebLink

4_ 12EVISIONS AND OMISSIONS TO THE AGENDA Ms_ Decker advised that Item 6.c._ PDR-426_ David Bo~stad, is being rcirioved froiri the agenda as the application was withdrawn at the request of the applicant_ She requested that the item be used only as an example of the type. of application that would be submitted is using the Design Guidelines to be considered by the Commission under Item Gb_ PLJD-98-16-3M_ David Bo~stad and Black Mountain Development, Mariposa Ranch (Callippe Golf Course). S_ MATTERS CONTINUED FOR DECISION There were none_ 6_ PUBLIC' HEARINGS AND OTHER MATTERS a_ PAP-75 (PDUP-6), Suman Trivedi Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's denial of an application Ivor a conditional use permit to operate a large family daycare home ~7-14 children at the existing residence located at 770 St_ Michael Circle. Zoning for the property is PUD-MDR Planned Unit Development - i-iigh Density Residential District. Ms. Decker summarized the staff report and noted that the application for the large --- family daycare was not recommended. by statT-due to numerous site constraints. She expl aincd that the Zoning Administrator denied the application because the project could not meat the Large Family Daycare development standards related to traffic control., parking requirements, noise, and fire code requirements, and the appropriate findings could not be made_ She also stated that the City ordinarily supports the request for this use, that typically the development standards era able to be net, and that the City does work with applicants to find a way to mitigate either site constraints and neighborhood concerns In this case, there was no opportunity to use off-site parking on Tawny Drive because it is not allowed; there was inadequate on-site parking because ii was reserved for the owners and/or tenants of the residential development; directly in front of the applicant's unit is a no parking zone for fire access to be kept clear at all tiirics; and. the unit was located at the end of an internal drive aisle. Staff had not provided the Commissioners with an alternative decision to approve the appeal and overturn the decision by the Zoning Administrator because at that time the t3ndings for approving the application could not be met_ No conditions had been able to he crafted. in order to make such findings. Ms. Decker advised the Planning Cotritrtission that if it should determine that it wished to uphold the appeal, that decision would necessitate directing staff to provide such conditions it felt were necessary and return the item to the Commission at a future meeting for a dccision_ Staff recommended upholding the Zoning Administrator's denial of this appeal. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 9, 2005 Page 2 of 7 O