Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19890705 ~ -\u RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ( PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 5. 1989 Roger Hunt called meeting to order at 4:30pm. Answering roll call were Graeme Means, Bruce Kerr, Mari Peyton, and Roger Hunt. Jim Colombo, Jasmine Tygre, Michael Herron and Welton Anderson were excused. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Roger: I have noticed in the west end and I assume other areas as well, a proliferation of Westec Security signs in the right- of-way. Indeed they happen to have the house number with them but this is getting to look more like advertising as opposed to informing that the house is secured. Do our present codes address this type of sign? Alan: I believe they do. I will check. r Roger: It would seem to me that they shouldn't be put on mail boxes, posts and things like that in the right-of-way. I don't have a problem with them on the building itself but it shouldn't be put on mail boxes, posts and things like that in the right-of- way and to have them stick out like real estate signs allover the place. Then I think it is just sheer advertisement. I would like to have the Commissioners take a look at what the present formula for code does as far as bulk on a 6,000sqft lot. I suggest you drive by 620 West Hallam--a new house that is going in. You look at that house and you think-is this what we accomplished with the last code revision? If it is to be the 5 and 10 side yard setbacks it sure looks to me like the porch is in the setback on the west side. STAFF COMMENTS There were none. MINUTES MARCH 21. 1989 MAY 30. 1989 Bruce made a motion to approve the minutes of March 21 and May 30, 1989. Graeme seconded the motion with all in favor. CONSENT AGENDA Mari made a motion to approve the consent agenda. PZM7.5.89 Graeme seconded the motion with all in favor. PUBLIC HEARINGS HISTORIC DESIGNATIONS 430 W. MAIN STREET. 406 W. SMUGGLER. 210 S. GALENA Roger opened the public hearing and asked if there was anyone from the public who was here to speak for or against any of the historic designations. There was no public comment. Roxanne: I have received certificate of mailing for all 3 of these. They have been appropriately noticed. These projects are 96, 97 and 98 designated landmarks for the City and we recommend approval and applaud their efforts and interest in historic preservation. MOTION Roger: I will entertain a motion to recommend approval of landmark designation of 430 West Main street, 406 West Smuggler and 210 South Galena Street. Mari: I so move. Bruce seconded the motion with all in favor. HIGH ALTITUDE CUISINE CONDITIONAL USE PUBLIC HEARING Leslie made presentation as attached in record. Applicant presented affidavit of posting. <Attached in record) Leslie: Jim Adamski feels that the employee unit should go with the use because the employee generation number was arrived at because of the use. Roger: use to housing But if the some other unit. applicant all of a sudden decides to change use we could end up losing that employee Leslie: If it reversed back the whole reason for the provision for the housing is because it is a conditional use review. The idea of making restaurant a conditional use is because the intensity and the numbers of people employed there are so much higher than a permitted use on site. ,,,,v 2 PZM7.5.89 I would like to add language into our recommended condition. I left out provision of cash-in-lieu of $2,700. So this would be added to #6. "The applicant shall also provide an affordable housing impact fee of $2,700 payable to the finance director prior to issuance of the building permit". Warren: On the lowest level would be a bakery in back of the portion. There would be a bakery, kitchen and a few tables for bakery service, coffee, espresso bar etc. On the other half of the room would be the cafe and kitchen. And in the far corner of the room would be the tables for the cafe. On the main level would level and cafe tables. apartment. be a bus station for service for that And the upper level is just the Roger: So the main level is restaurant and bar? Warren: the bar to hang That is correct with a bus station but no kitchen. And is basically a service bar, not a bar where you would go out. It would also have an espresso machine at it. Roger: What provision have you made for the operation of servicing the restaurant upstairs from your kitchen downstairs? Warren: It would be a dumb waiter situation or we would use the back stairs. Roger: So this is basically a restaurant that has an accessory bakery to it. It is primarily a restaurant. Warren: The bakery will be very substantial on the bottom level. Roger: If you were to come in on the main level you would just see a restaurant, right? Warren: That is correct. Catherine: I think you come in on a level and you go up a level of stairs to the main level where the restaurant is and then you go down to the bakery. So really they are both very viewable from the entry. wi th respect to the employee housing I should have been more specific about what we did intend to say with what we were willing to do was we would covenant with the city so long as we operated the premises as a restaurant it would be restricted to low income following the guidelines of the city. It would be low income. 3 --'~"'" .-.,"--..'-,.-'.--- PZM7.5.89 If we no longer operate it as a restaurant the incremental need for employee housing would terminate as well as the use as a restaurant. Roger: My problem with that is when does it cease to become a restaurant and start to become a bakery or vice versa. Catherine: We would stipulate either way. We just don't want to have the responsibility of that commitment if we are no longer there operating as we proposed. If we did covenant with the City to provide this unit as employee housing there was a provision that the $7,800 parking fee be waived. Leslie: The option that you have is that one of those parking spaces--we are attaching one of those spaces to the unit upstairs that through special review that the parking fee may be waived if you made it deed restricted. But you would still be short .52 spaces because just the bakery and the restaurant as commercial requires 2.52 spaces and you then still are short a space. Mari: At what point does that waiving of the parking happen? Leslie: Generally at special review it would be reviewed by you and waived by the Commission. Bruce: Do we want to leave with the applicant the discretion to do A or B? Leslie: Staff prefers A. The Housing Authority prefers A. Catherine: We understand that they would prefer that. But if we exercise the option as set forth in B that we have built the housing requirement of meeting the incremental needs we would like to have that option. Roger: Also with a unit off site that becomes a deed restriction issue and I have more problems with that as long as the applicant operates a restaurant on the premises. Then you end up with an off site unit. I see the logic with a unit on site. But I don't see allowing the loss of an employee housing off site because they happen to change from restaurant to something else. Catherine: To mitigate that concern the applicant says that he will keep that on whether he ceases to operate a restaurant or not. It would not be a problem because they say they would maintain it as a deed restricted unit even if they didn't operate 4 -~""""'-'- PZM7.5.89 the restaurant anymore--the off site unit. to the other one. That does not apply Roger: So the final clause is not active in that case--on lB. Catherine: On B. Roger then opened the public hearing. Leslie Troyer, neighbor: our alleys look like. serviced by one garbage impact is incredible restaurant. Showing pictures. This entire block can. It has been when you think I am addressing what from here to here is for 15 years. So the about putting in a I pick up garbage. I keep that alley clean. I have been there for 18 years. As we were standing there this morning measuring the garbage site a delivery truck came and parked in the middle of the street. Nobody could get in or out for 1/2 an hour. And that is typical. It was a total block. There are a lot of businesses who have to access plus residential. Basically what I want to bring up is the impact of the garbage. The impact as far as being able to move in the alley. What I am very concerned about is no matter what is promised it is not always fulfilled. Myself and other people have to live in the neighborhood and deal with it day by day. And we have made a concerted effort through the years to make it a showplace. And if indeed the restaurant is approved I would like very strong, stringent garbage rules and to know that there is something that if they are not followed there is some follow up. Roger then read into the record a letter from Tony Dumire expressing concerns of this application. (Attached in record) Sunny Vann, representing Leslie Troyer: Leslie is very much concerned about the alley. She has asked me to comment about whether or not I believe the applicant has mitigated the impacts caused by the addition of a restaurant. The original application calls for the use of a compactor. Primarily to help alleviate existing problems in the area. Also to look at the need for daily trash piCk up. There are 3 buildings including the applicant's building who use this one dumpster. A minimum of 9 commercial uses and at least one residence use that dumpster excluding the previous use of Pat Moore's building. Neither of the adjacent buildings provide dumpsters. Nor do they have any ability to do so since their buildings abut the alley 5 PZM7.5.89 itself. As you know the C-1 zone district requires the utility and trash access adjacent to the alley itself. A problem with the trash solution is the amount of trash storage that is being provided. The compactor has been abandoned for some good reasons. They have proposed instead to provide a covered space for 2 dumpsters behind one of the existing parking spaces. I believe the amount of dumpsters proposed to be provided is inadequate. Since there is no room to expand that dumpster area the only solution is to pick it up more frequently and that would further exacerbate the congestion problem in the alley. Another problem is the disposal of grease. provided for in this application. Half of the block is residential. They are required to be accessed off the alley. The number of restaurants that are already there and the extent of the commercial development dictates deliveries at all hours of the day and frequent trash pick ups. Some level of congestion is to be expected because of the different types of land uses. This has not been Given the mixed nature of this block and the extent of the commercial development and the fact that almost all of the buildings there with the exception of new residential structure which Leslie has constructed are non-conforming with respect to trash, storage areas, utilities and so forth does it really make sense to further exacerbate the problem by approving a use which is more intensive than those which are permitted by right in the zone district and certainly not to do so unless you can demonstrate sufficiently that those problems have been addressed. I think this application as it currently is proposed fails to demonstrate that that trash problem has been resolved. As I read the regulation it requires that an incremental increase in employees that are generated be mitigated. I think the deed restriction of the on site is an excellent solution to a portion of the problem but I think that the application errs in the fact that it states that that unit is a 1 bedroom unit. It is currently a studio. If it is to be counted as a 1 bedroom for credit toward their cash-in-lieu then I think the condition should reflect the fact that that unit should be converted to a 1 bedroom in order to claim the credit. Lennie Oates, representing Furngulf Ltd which is the owner of the property immediately adjacent to the proposed project: The Furngulf people concur in what Sunny has just said. There is a 6 -...,~...-._~~"~~,-~"--~,--- PZM7.5.89 letter in the file expressing our concerns regarding access, trash and cooking odors. <Attached in record) Furthermore, the applicant can come in and give lip service in terms of all the great things he is going to do but once he has his permit and once it is in operation what are the teeth in that particular mechanism? Specifically I read from the Planning Office memo that apparently there was another application for this or some sort of related property. The City is still having problems apparently with enforcing the obligations of the applicant in that particular situation. The applicant has come in and said they are going to run a moderate priced operation. What control do we have over whether this is going to be a moderate priced operation? Do you have guidelines for this? Bear in mind that you are in the C-1 zone. You are not in the C-C zone and specifically, as in the Planning Office memo, you are looking for diversified and resident-related commercial residential and professional offices so basically this is a transitional zone. , '''->-'' Graeme: I sympathize with a lot of people who are in the alley now in that I do think a restaurant use is more impactful. I don't necessarily think we need more restaurants in town. There are other things that we need more--office space. The intention of this zone was for uses which we need more than another restaurant. I am tending right now to not be in favor of this. Mari: Asked for response from the applicant regarding concerns of trash removal. Catherine: I think that is a legitimate concern. But not unique to this application. How can you make sure that any commercial establishment takes care of their garbage? We have put in the means to do it. We have more than taken care of the additional trash by providing the 2 standard-size dumpsters. And they will not be exposed. Andy Hecht, representing the applicant: I think all these concerns are important. I think the burden should be on the applicant to mitigate the concerns that the neighbors have to the extent possible. I would like to say that Leslie has built 2 enormous condominiums and it was not the best place to build them if you wanted peace and quite and peace of mind. It is a commercial zone and there 7 PZM7.5.89 are commercial uses in her building that have tremendous impacts. And if you look at Tony Dumire he is packing flowers in there all day into his truck. People are coming and loading in that alley. And we really mitigate to the extent possible. Warren: In our plans that back deck is being extended out. We plan to put tables out there if we get the permits to do so. That is out the back. So it is in our interest to have that alley being very attractive. otherwise it is not going to be a very pleasant experience for our own customers. Troyer: I went the other morning and walked the whole alley. And I wasn't that impressed with Gordon's garbage as it is now. He does not even have--there are specified grease containers. Gordon's does not have room in his facility right now and he has essentially a barrel. And if he is not doing it there why am I to believe he will do it where we are? Gordon: I own Gordon's. We inherited the current restaurant space from the Ritz. This we are starting from scratch. We are remodeling the entire building which we didn't do at Gordon"s. Also regarding needing another restaurant: I can't tell you how many people have told us how excited they are about opening an affordable restaurant in town. We propose to do a restaurant that is open 12 month a year--breakfast, lunch and dinner. This restaurant is geared to be very affordable. It is very locals oriented. Bruce: I would like to point out that a conditional use is not a right but a privilege. It is granted by the City when appropriate. At this point in time I am not yet convinced that it is appropriate in this location. I think this may be a time where we say "no" to a conditional use unless full mitigation of all of the problems posed by staff and by the pUblic can be met by the applicant and fully enforced by the city. with that regard I think this really boils down to a zoning issue. Is this a conditional use that we need in this City and should we grant it in return of these mitigation factors? I am not convinced yet that they are fully mitigated. So at this point I am not too much in favor of the application. Roger: I have grave problems with the application. I have very much problems with the trash aspect. The parking aspect--not only the on-site parking but with what it has to do with the parking and the circulation accessory to the site. It is one more incremental problem which, to me, is a problem you cannot address satisfactorily. 8 PZM7.5.89 About the trash--I think Sunny's analysis is very close to mine. For practical purposes that parking space is going to be unusable. If it is going to be an effective trash area, you can't have parking there. If you can't have parking there you have to pay for it off site elsewhere. I don I t see much of a possibility of mitigating your own on-site trash problems. I just don't see this as a practical solution to handling your trash. And I certainly don't see it as a twice-a-week pickup. So I have grave problems with this. And I am saying this to see if you have a way of coming back and mitigating this. Andy: We would like the opportunity to come back with some specific suggestions. And we think we can do it. Mari: I am interested in hearing how you can assure that these mitigation can work. The concern I have along with the same concerns already expressed is this business of having an employee unit with parking waived. That has been something that really bothers me. No one ever seems to think that there should be a denial of the waiving for it. I feel like that is the one instance where parking should not be waived. If anybody is going to have a car it is someone who lives and works here. Looking down the line it seems to me like that is going to be another indirect impact. Another car floating around--someone who lives in the commercial core who can't park within 3 or 4 blocks of where they live. I do like the idea of a cafe and bakery and I would certainly like to figure out a way it could work. MOTION Roger: I will entertain a application and to continue Altitude Cuisine Conditional 1989. motion to table action on this the public hearing for the High Use to date certain of July 25, Mari: I so move. Bruce seconded the motion with all in favor. Bruce moved to adjourn the meeting. Mari seconded the motion with all in favor. Time was 6:10pm. Clerk