Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report ~' ~ ~ _ i I~~ ~~ _ ,ADDENDUM Ta THE STAFF REPORT FOR Tam CONSIl~ERATIQN 4F PA-RI~Il~1G LOT AT 1022 FASTER A ' ' ' d use decisions the Com rehensive Plan rovides statements o.f In guiding Ian p p ~' intent or osition that e ress the Council's commitment relative to development p ~ ' • • es and matters. These positions are.: expressed: through the, goals and ob~ectiv ~~ more s ecificall through policies, standards and guidelines. Qne stated Land p y .and multi-famil Use .objective is o protect the Integrity of single family y residential areas. Associated olicies state that Ingle family areas should be p . se orated from more: intense uses with buffers and where this is not possible to p ~; ~~ avoid visual conflict and the' draw district boundaries ..along rear lot lines to intrusion: of commercial traffic into less .intense areas. ~ s e ..staff offers the In response to issues brought up at ..the P&Z meeting th following comments: om rehensive .Plan shows this black as retail commercial although it is The C p ' currentl zoned R-6 and developed argely as single family. if we accept the Plan ect in its future intent then what '-must be decided is how best to go abort as corr accom lishin this transition-.from residential to commercial uses. Do 'we do it i one lot at a time while mitigating negative effects as each .lot develops or do we wait o encoura e the bu in u and redevelopment of he entire block? The g y g P Ci itself has alread moved the use of "parking" back into this: same ty Y the nei hborhoad. However, it was done by consolidating lots beginning at g er and not b develo in an area between two .:residences. The decision corn y p . brought about by this case is one that must -look to he ong term.. '~ lso a short. term decision. There is no doubt :chat there is currently a There is a roblem in the nei hbarhood due to overflow parking. The decision is one of g p • e surroundin wei hin the benefit of removin ..some of .the overflow cars from th g g - a commercial. Arkin lat. into a residential streets versus allowing .the intrusion of p g .residential area in transition. licant is ro osn to alleviate some of he overflow problem with. this The.. app p p g ro osal while miti atin some of the ossible adverse impacts in the following p P ~ g p ways: 4nl allowin vehicular access throw h the existing Chili's parking lot g g .. . ~1) y , and denying access to Foster Street, ~2) Providing a visual buffer along ' Foster with the ro osed berm (and agreeing at P&Z to supply; a 4' fence p P ~ , , as well), ~3) Providin for an 8 screen fence.: along the common side ro er lines and Providin li htin to avoid loitering and andalism ptY, ~ t gg: g p .. within the parking lot itself. ' uestion is does tackle the immediate roblem of overflow parking in The.: final q g_ P . ~ this articular way jeopardize the City s long term intent of seeing this block p ' _ ' and its 'a to the Ci develop as retail commercial in a way that Is most benefice 1 ty citizens. Is the roblem` so critical that it justifies the piecemeal approach..? The p . .: iecemeal a roach, which n most instances is considered less desirable, coupled,... p pp .. with the nee hborhood opposition in this case calls for looking to see if there are g ~~ i i alternatives to the problem.