pages: PlanningBoard/2007-12-10.pdf, 5
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2007-12-10 | 5 | affect all properties in non-residential zoning districts and mixed use zoning districts. (DG) Mr. Garrison presented the staff report. Board Member Lynch noted that with respect to the language: "Ensure that adverse effects on the economic vitality of existing commercial districts are minimized," he would like staff's definition of "vitality." He suggested using the word "viable," because what is vital to one individual may not be to another, nor to the tax rolls. Mr. Garrison noted that these questions were encountered while writing the General Plan policies, and that the findings were based on the policies. Board Member Lynch requested clarification on the terms "fair" and "equitable" as they related to existing businesses and their desire to modify, upgrade and expand, and their desire to say "noncoforming." He requested that staff include insurability and financing of the projects. Mr. Garrison noted that the businesses became nonconforming because they did not have a use permit, not in the more traditional sense of not meeting a setback, or a healthy and safety issue. He noted that they would like to gain the business community's knowledge so as to not penalize good businesses that have been in business for a long time. Board Member Lynch noted that he was comfortable with that, and suggested that as staff moved through the facilitated process of engaging the business community, that someone address where the community should go, and what it should look like legally 20 to 30 years in the future. Another question would be addressing what the relationship would be for a viable business to continue with their viability in the community, so that a legal distinction can be reached for the entire community. He noted that people will patronize a store if they enjoy the projects, and he believed the City should encourage that. He noted that business owners should also remain current with the City's guidelines. He suggested that staff insert those concepts in the conversation. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired about the Use Permit Requirements at the top of page 4: "A single large format retail use permit would be required for shopping centers consisting of multiple buildings with 30,000 or more square feet of cumulative floor area." She inquired whether only one use permit would be required if there were numerous 30,000 square foot uses. Mr. Garrison replied that they discussed the possibility of numerous stores of 29,000 square feet that would be exempt, and they wanted to ensure there would not be a loophole. The idea was to link it to the shopping center as one large entity, not a specific building in the shopping center. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft believed that the language, "The proposed use will be served by adequate transportation and service facilities, including pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities," could include more detail such as bike racks, bus stops and pedestrian Page 5 of 12 | PlanningBoard/2007-12-10.pdf |