Other Issues <br />Opponent Jim Wilson (Wilson (no relation)) argues that there is already heavy traffic on <br />his cul-de-sac, which is across the street from the subject property. Wilson would like no parking <br />during school hour signs installed on his cul-de-sac. The installation of such signs is handled by a <br />different department of the City. There is nothing in the zone change approval criteria that affects <br />this issue one way or the other. Wilson is free to work with the City on seeking to install such <br />signage. <br />Young argues that there are many ongoing conflicts with the school. According to Young, <br />she has had to call the police on multiple occasions regarding noise complaints with activities at <br />the school. While I can sympathize with Young's complaints, those problems are with the current <br />use of the property and must be dealt with through existing mechanisms such as enforcement <br />actions. Existing complaints just do not have anything to do with the approval criteria for a zone <br />change. Any existing problems with the school do not provide a basis to deny the application. <br />Young argues that the staff report does not adequately address why the site review overlay <br />was imposed in the first place. Although Young does not discuss the issue, the question of how <br />existing site review overlays (or other overlays) may be removed has come up on multiple <br />occasions. There has not been a uniform method for treating such requests. In a fairly recent case, <br />I discussed the issue: <br />The primary legal issue in this case is how to treat the removal of the overlay zones. As <br />discussed, the zone change approval criteria of EC 9.8865 are the appropriate provisions <br />for seeking removal of an overlay zone. Assuming an application meets all the other <br />requirements for a zone change, the question is whether there is something that requires <br />that the overlay remain. The applicant argues that the only thing to look at is the Metro <br />Plan and the applicable refinement plan. According to the applicant, if there is nothing in <br />the Metro Plan or applicable refinement plan that requires the overlay zone then it must be <br />removed. The applicant further argues that there is no need, and in fact it would be legal <br />error, to consider the history of the subject property or the original purpose for the <br />imposition of the overlay zone. Opponents unsurprisingly argue that the circumstances <br />involving the property must be considered, and if the reason for the overlay still exists then <br />the overlay must remain. <br />I do not agree with the applicant that the Hearings Officer cannot even consider the history <br />behind the imposition of the overlay zone. There are a number of Hearings Official and <br />Planning Commission decisions involving the removal of overlay zones that specifically <br />consider the circumstances involving the imposition of the overlay zone. I also do not agree <br />with opponents that the original purpose of the overlay zone independently requires that an <br />overlay zone remain. The prior cases cited by the parties such as Kendall Auto Group (Z <br />3 In fact, the only EC provision cited by Young is the noise ordinance at EC 4.083. <br />Hearings Official Decision (Z 20-2) Page 7164