11-13-17 Zoning and Annexation - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

seeing repeated applications for that. The second provision deals with landscaping in the right- of-way. We often have petitioners seek to not put in any landscaping when there is ample tree lawn to put in landscaping. This would allow them to do that and it would count as permanent landscaping. The minimum parking requirement in Mixed-Use Districts has accounted for forty- two percent(42%) of our variance requests over the last few years. We are attempting to make Mixed-Use Districts similar to the Central Business Districts. They won't be required to have parking but if they provide it, it would have to meet the standards. The last provision deals with outdoor seating. There are several districts that have a limit of ten percent(10%) of the gross floor area. This comes to you from the Area Plan Commission(APC)with a favorable recommendation. Committee Chair Davis opened the floor to questions from the Committee and Councilmembers. Councilmember Tim Scott asked, How much was the City involved in this process? Ms. Smith replied, This was a joint effort between the Building Department, APC and the Department of Community Investment. Councilmember Dr. David Varner asked, The proposal to allow landscaping in adjacent public right of ways, if it is approved, will that affect our need to use that right of way? Ms. Smith replied, If it is a type of tree that the Arborist approves and the Board of Public Works is aware of it,there would not be a negative effect. Committeemember Jo M. Broden asked, Was there any consideration of having a substitute location for parking or landscaping? Ms. Smith replied, We do have a lot of alternative landscape options. However,putting landscaping some place offsite begins to become very complex. We did look into it,though. This whole landscape section will probably need another refreshing because between parking and landscaping, those two (2) sections are the most petitioned for variances. Committee Chair Davis then opened the floor to members of the public wishing to speak in favor of or in opposition to the legislation. Michael Divita, Principal Planner with the Department of Community Investment with offices on the 14th floor of the County-City Building, stated, As Angela mentioned, we worked very closely with APC and the Building Department. This is all an attempt to reduce the unnecessary variances that hinder development. These changes will allow buildings to be built that better match the neighborhood context. As for parking, sometimes the lots aren't big enough for both the parking and the building. Usually business neighbors share parking. Sue Kessim, 4022 Kennedy Drive, stated, My concern with this is the Board of Public Works has allowed business to go all the way to the street with their dining and that doesn't leave a five (5) foot access way for ADA compliance. I don't like that has been ignored. To me,that is unacceptable. If you want a place where people walk we have to be intentional about making that possible. 2