07/30/2002 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

with legitimate restrictions on the amount of retail that can go on the site. As he went thrdugh and compared the permitted uses in the various districts, and he looked at the initial uses in retail district, there were things that were certainly reasonable retail uses that rvould work effectively at -this location that were not included in the list. To put themselves in the strongest possible position in terms of defending the district they are imposing on the property, they want to incorporate some of those uses. It would be very difficult for them to show that selling clothing on the site is not an appropriate use. There are a lot of thinas that are not listed because he does not believe they are appropriate, such as service stations and things of that nature. This is just an attempt to clean up that list. In items (5)(f) it mentions the sale of food. The code has soft drinks, and juices but he suggests changing it to food and beverages because the way it is written now, you couldn't have a coffee shop. It is identifying specific types of beverages as opposed to simply saying food and beverages. Drive-in facilities are not desirable at this location due to being adjacent to a residential area. They need to think of this site as a transition property from the more concentrated retail and commercial use. That is why it is mixed use. Coming back down to the residential area, some of those types of commercial uses are not appropriate. That is an important inclusion regarding the drive-in facility issue. The one thing he took out that they may want to discuss is the alcoholic beverage service. He left in the prohibition against the entertainment but his logic with xegard to the alcoholic beverage service is that any true upscale.restaurant is going to include alcoholic beverage service as part of its operation. If they prohibit it altogether, they would eliminate the vast number of restaurants coming in that would be of an appropriate nature. They don't want clubs; they don't want bars, etc. They have that limitation in there but if they leave the no alcoholic beverage sales in they may be doing themselves a disservice. He provided the. other local retail service uses but added ]anguage similar in character and impact to the ones that are listed and permitted. They are appropriate to this specific location and are consistent with the spirit and intent of the mixed used district. They will _ not have an adverse affect upon adjacent residential properties. He has attempted to give the board a broader and more specific set of criteria by which to judge the use that may not be specifically listed that comes before the Planning Commission as requesting to go into the district. They have better guidelines and have a stronger basis to make decisions and a firmer ground for making decisions. The board is in a position to better place the yardstick of community values and community needs against that proposal. Mr. Spalding asked if there was a reason he left out traffic patterns. Mr. Smerigan said he took out specific references to any specific impact and he is saying they would not have an adverse impact on the_adjacent residential properties. He did it that way because the board needs to look at the whole spectrum of poteritial impacts. They have to consider aesthetics, property values, and vehicular traffic. But they also have to consider noise, odors, and a number of things that could impact the neighbors. N1r. Smerigan said if they go in with a laundry list they end up leaving something out. It is much simpler to access the impacts as they see them and use the purpose and intent of this district and the nature of the locati.on as a transition zone. The character and nature of the uses that are in fact specifically permitted as guidelines for determining whether or not something is appropriate at that location. There has been a lot of discussion in that regard. Tfie way it is written they have to make a positive finding that the characteristics are such that they can add-the use to the list. They start out assuming the answer is no which puts them in the best spot. The applicant has the burden of proof to bring the board sufficient information to convince them otherwise. They have to make a positive set of determinations and if that can't be done, the use doesn't get added to the list. Mr. Smerigan said the next section is really the heart of the development regulations for Mixed Use D. He took out (A) because it simply tries to bootstrap into (D) all the items from (A), (B), and (C) that weren't necessarily inconsistent or compatible. He believes it is easier to list what it is they want to see in the district in a positive sense. They still have the definition of development area, which he changed slightly. He simply adjusted the language. The first item deals with building setbacks. He reduced the setback from the abutting street. This is 3