2015-09-17_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Special Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, September 17, 2015 Page 10 Vertical Mixed Use 438 Mr. Lloyd clarified that this category provided customer focused uses on the ground floor and 439 residential or office uses above. While not currently in the land use table, but could be considered 440 in the future in NB designations, Mr. Lloyd noted that a visual example would allow for a two story 441 building with residences above. Currently, Mr. Lloyd advised that this use was under the dwelling 442 use for multi-family upper stories in mixed use buildings, which are allowed in Regional Business 443 (RB) but not west of Rosedale Center, with similar uses allowed in RB districts. 444 If defined by offices or residences above the first floor, Chair Boguszewski asked if, as an 445 example, that would permit day care centers on the ground floor with apartments or condos 446 above; and whether the intent was to protect the CMU-1 from HDR use with apartments or 447 condo’s not falling into the single-family category. 448 Mr. Bilotta noted that the 35’ height limitation would come into play; and could allow for a first floor 449 day care and one floor of apartments above, or artists’ lofts, which should not problematic. 450 Member Bull expressed his interest in seeing that as a CU in CMU-1 and CMU-2 451 designations, which was agreed to by consensus of the body. 452 Industrial Uses 453 Limited Production/Processing 454 With the considerable amount of residential neighborhood feedback the Commission had 455 received related to the Vogel Mechanical use, Member Cunningham expressed her struggles with 456 this category, whether from that specific issue or with the general use itself. 457 Mr. Bilotta noted that, since the Vogel Mechanical limited production use remained yet to be 458 initiated, it was impossible to say it is or is not working, since it’s not yet there. Mr. Bilotta clarified 459 that what was happening was a lot of issues getting to the conditions and that process, with the 460 limited production/processing serving as a lightning rod right now. Using another example in that 461 immediate neighborhood (e.g. Head Cycling), Mr. Bilotta noted that their production of carbon 462 fiber rims wasn’t even known to the neighborhood, with them opening up in February and starting 463 manufacturing shortly thereafter, without incident. Mr. Bilotta further clarified that the test is in 464 whether that particular use in a multi-tenant building, with an office next door, had any impact to 465 those other operations or interfered with neighboring tenants in that same multi-tenant building 466 with a dividing wall; with the sign being that there should be no impact and should also be 467 invisible to the outside world as anything other than an office use. Mr. Bilotta cautioned the 468 Commission not to base their decision-making or build city code on the Vogel issues. 469 To further differentiate, Mr. Bilotta noted that a desired component of the Twin Lakes 470 Redevelopment Area was for high-tech, head of household jobs, or incubator uses for such 471 business start-ups; and since those desired uses keep coming up, and remain desirable, Mr. 472 Bilotta noted the further desire to transition from current warehouse buildings (e.g. trucking 473 terminals) to get to the results for neighborhood business uses. If dealing with a small dental 474 office that starts bringing production or processing in, as an example, Mr. Bilotta opined that it 475 would be a totally different situation than office, but could be argued to be limited production and 476 processing; but given the nature of the business, having the use permitted with CU allows a 477 deeper dig into this type of use versus blanket approval without any review by the Commission 478 and allowing it to see their process and business operation, which usually will prove nothing 479 remarkably different than an office use. 480 At the request of Member Bull, Mr. Paschke confirmed that a CU stayed with a property as long 481 as they continued to meet the conditions as applied upon initial approval. 482 By contrast, Mr. Lloyd noted that if a different type of use in limited production/processing was 483 indicated, it would require a new CU approval. 484 Mr. Bilotta concurred, noting that if not complying with the CU conditions, the City would become 485 involved in enforcement action against the property and against that use. 486 Chair Boguszewski agreed with Mr. Bilotta’s advisement that this situation is not about the Vogel 487 Mechanical use. 488