Laserfiche WebLink
clearly fall outside the architectural compatibility of the historic <br />neighborhood; <br />III. The existing accessory structures on the site and the proposed <br />pavilion are not consistent with the Art Moderne style and detract <br />from the historical designation of the home and the neighborhood as <br />a whole; <br />IV. The property owners have shown a proclivity to violate the statutory <br />requirements of designation as an historical landmark as well as <br />violating the SAMC; <br />V. The property owner's use of the site as a cultural center (e.g., <br />seasonal cultural gatherings, festivals, and tours) that bring high <br />volume of cars and school buses; and <br />VI. Questions whether the Planning Commission visited the site prior to <br />approving CUP No. 2022-06 to view the property and surrounding <br />homes and whether the Planning Commission gave any <br />consideration of the recent designation of Floral Park as a National <br />Historic District. Moreover, the appellant provides further questions <br />about whether the owners will be held accountable for obtaining <br />retroactive building permits for an ADU, as well as <br />maintenance/upkeep of the "historically important home," and how <br />the City will monitor the site to ensure it is not being used as a cultural <br />center. <br />K. On November 19, 2024, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public <br />hearing on Appeal Application No. 2024-01. Staff notes that the appellant <br />does not provide any evidence that the proposed project would adversely <br />impact the community, pursuant to Section 41-638 of the SAMC. <br />Specifically, the appellant does not provide evidence to substantiate that <br />the project will be a detriment to the general wellbeing of the neighborhood <br />or the community; detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of <br />persons residing or working in the vicinity; would adversely affect the <br />present economic stability or future economic development of property in <br />the surrounding area; does not comply with the regulations and conditions <br />specified in this chapter for such use; and would adversely affect the <br />general plan of the city or any specific plan applicable to the area of the <br />proposed use. Nevertheless, a comprehensive response on the appeal <br />items previously outlined has been prepared and can be found in Exhibit 6 <br />of the staff report dated November 19, 2024 that was prepared for the <br />appeal. <br />Section 2. The City Council, after hearing, considering and weighing all <br />evidence in the record presented on behalf of all parties and being fully informed of the <br />application, the Planning Commission's decision, and the appeal, hereby finds and <br />determines that the Planning Commission's decision was not made in error, that the <br />Resolution No. 2024-xx <br />Page 3 of 16 <br />