2015-11-04_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Special Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes –Wednesday, September 17, 2015 Page 21 Speaking in general, Chair Boguszewski opined that the city has done a good job of outreach to 992 get the public involved with a variety of opportunities to attend, speak and comment; but at some 993 point decisions needed to be made.Chair Boguszewski opined that the city needed to balance 994 residential and business-community needs whether or not that balance is perceived accurately by 995 both sides. 996 Specific to this issue, Chair Boguszewski recognized that it may be scary to some people, but 997 also asked that they keep in mind that the whole intent is to allow development but to not do so in 998 a way that will be harmful to what the community already has in place, nor to residents and 999 neighborhoods.Chair Boguszewski noted that not all potential uses were going to occur, with the 1000 overall list of uses perhaps seeming overwhelming and frightening, but further noted that some 1001 development should and will happen.Given the checks and balances already in place, Chair 1002 Boguszewski opined that these revisions were a good start and other details would be addressed 1003 project by project.Again, just because a use is permitted, Chair Boguszewski noted there are 1004 other regulations in place that need to happen and that would address many of the neighborhood 1005 concerns. 1006 For clarification purposes, Chair Boguszewski noted that the depth from existing residential 1007 properties to CMU-1 designated areas was 400’ which he found a pretty good distance, 1008 representing approximately 3 narrow blocks of width.Therefore, Chair Boguszewski questioned if 1009 he would necessarily agree with extending it further and reduce permitted uses in CMU-3. 1010 Chair Boguszewski referenced the recently-constructed fire station on Lexington Avenue as an 1011 example for height and designed with setbacks and other features falling within the regulating 1012 plan and form.From his personal perspective, Chair Boguszewski stated he didn’t find that height 1013 to stick out or overshadow the residential properties across Lexington Avenue.Chair 1014 Boguszewski further stated his agreement in keeping the 35’ height restriction and using footage 1015 versus stories as the guide, opining that could work with other things already in play for 1016 development projects. 1017 Regarding the concern expressed during public comment about the potential for a hotel 1018 development as a permitted use in CMU-3 designated areas, Chair Boguszewski opined that he 1019 still considered that it would be buffered sufficiently.While recognizing the visceral restrictions to 1020 some uses listed in the Table brought up by Ms. McCormick, Chair Boguszewski offered his 1021 willingness to listen if any individual commissioners wished to bring discussion forward or re- 1022 address any of those uses already discussed and agreed upon by consensus during discussion 1023 tonight.However, Chair Boguszewski opined thatfrom his perspective, enabling vertical mixed 1024 use was at the heart of this plan and to get that urban feel, originating with the classic use for 1025 small businesses on the ground floor with residential use above that.Therefore, Chair 1026 Boguszewski opined thathe couldn’t see striking that, and especially since CMU-4 designation is 1027 already only permitted as a CU on the boundary of larger roads as well, seeing no reason to pull 1028 it out unless there was a consensus to do so. 1029 Regarding the hour issue, Chair Boguszewski questioned if there was a need to look at any 1030 specific issues brought up that would prompt rewriting text in Section 6.a, or changing the 2:00 1031 a.m. to something earlier.From his perspective, Chair Boguszewski opined that the bottom line 1032 was that there were sufficient checks and balances in place overall for any potential use that 1033 protections were in place for neighborhoods while allowing attractive development to occur with 1034 minor tweaks perhaps needed from time to time going forward. 1035 Member Gitzen 1036 Member Gitzen stated that when first reviewing the Table of Uses and four sections, he didn’t 1037 think there were enough gradients.However, after further review and discussion, Member Gitzen 1038 stated that, from a general perspective, he was comfortable with the balance achieved. 1039 Member Bull 1040 Member Bullconcurred for the most part with the comments of Chair Boguszewski.On uses, 1041 Member Bull stated that he weighed restrictions on hours of operation, employment and 1042 deliveries, as addressed in CMU-1 designated areas sufficiently through a combination of 1043 permitted, not permitted or conditional use differentials. 1044