September 17, 2018 — Meeting Minutes
CITY PLAN COMMISSION/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD COUNCIL CHAMBERS – CITY HALL REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2018 1730 (05:30 PM)
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Steve Lichtenfeld at 1731 (05:31 PM).
ROLL CALL
Chairman Steve Lichtenfeld, Aldermanic Representative Richard Lintz, Rom Reim, William Liebermann, Brian Maguire, Carolyn Gaidis, answered roll call.
Absent: Craig Owens, City Manager
ALSO IN ATTENDANCE
Stephanie Karr, Acting City Attorney Susan M. Istenes, AICP, Planning Director Anna Krane, Planner
CHAIRMAN REQUESTS
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked that all cell phones be turned off and that conversations take place outside the meeting room.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the regular meeting of September 04, 2018 were presented for approval. Carolyn Gaidis asked that the following correction (TREE ROOTS) be made to the sentence “She asked if the WALL will be hard pruned…”. She also asked that the name CYNTHIA GARNHOLZ on page 3 be changed to CAROLYN GAIDIS. The minutes were then approved as amended, after having been previously distributed to the members
MOTION TO APPROVE
MOTION SECONDED
MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED BY THE BOARD
2
OLD BUSINESS
241 LINDEN AVE – ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARS – ALTERATION/EXTERIOR RENOVATION
Director Susan M. Istenes read the staff report as follows: “The proposed site work was previously presented to the Architectural Review Board on September 04, 2018. The request was continued to allow the applicant to provide additional drawings and plans to clarify the design of the generator pad and screening. The applicant has provided revised drawings with additional information about the generator placement. The applicant has also added the location and design of retaining walls at the northeast corner of the front yard, that were installed without approval from the Architectural Review Board.
The 15,487 square foot site is located at the northwest corner of the intersection between Linden Avenue and Kingsbury Boulevard. The property has a zoning designation of R-2 Single Family Dwelling District. The proposed project consists of the installation of an emergency generator adjacent to the existing HVAC units in the front yard along Kingsbury Boulevard. The proposed generator measures approximately 4.5 feet wide by 11 feet long by 5.67 feet tall. Two retaining walls are required to create a level area for the generator and a solid screen fence is proposed.
The proposed generator location is in the secondary front yard along Kingsbury Boulevard. The generator would be highly visible from the public right-of-way; however, the applicant is proposing a solid screen fence. Staff supports the proposed location of the existing generator because it is adjacent to existing mechanical equipment and the necessary service connections. The proposed screen fence is solid cedar. As stated in the previous report, staff supports the use of a 6 foot tall solid wood fence for this project because it will be necessary to provide full screening of the equipment.
The subject property contains a metal decorative fence along the sidewalk of Kingsbury Boulevard that will remain in place. The applicant is also proposing additional landscaping between the new screen fence and the existing metal fence. The new landscaping will help provide screening of the additional mechanical equipment and soften the visual impact of the fence.
The applicant is proposing two retaining walls to create a level area for the generator pad. One wall is located between the existing HVAV equipment and the proposed generator. A second wall at a 90 degree angle is proposed at the east end of the generator. The walls are proposed as concrete with a stone veneer to match the existing stone found on the house and site. The screen fence will be installed level with the generator pad.
3 The stacked stone retaining walls in the northeast corner of the yard have already been installed. They were installed to create a level lawn area in the front yard. The stacked limestone is consistent with the accent material on the house façade and the existing stone columns along both street frontages. In conclusion, staff is of the opinion that the design is compatible with existing neighborhood character and requirements of the R-2 Single Family Dwelling District and the Architectural Review Board Guidelines.
STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED.
CHRISTOPHER LEONARD STATES HIS NAME FOR THE RECORD (CL)
Chairman Lichtenfeld – is a regular size residential unit or is it larger?
CL – It is a bit on the larger size. It is a 50 KW and its tank hold 75 gallons
Ron Reim (RR) – Do they realize that 75 gallons will need to be used within a year or they will have to get rid of it. It’ll need to be run regularly to burn up 75 gallons of fuel.
CL – Yes, they do not plan on keeping it 100% full for that reason. Will test it Quarterly.
Richard Lintz (RL) – I think it looks good.
Carolyn Gaidis (CG) – Its better the way it is. I like this plan better than what the elevation is showing.
Chairman Lichtenfeld – Any questions or comments from the audience?
------NONE------
CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – WE HAVE A STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AS
RR – MOTION TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED
CG – SECOND
MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED
CL – HOPEFULLY IT’LL BE INSTALLED THIS FALL
4
NEW BUSINESS
100 SOUTH BRENTWOOD BLVD – ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD – SIGNAGE
Director Susan M. Istenes read the staff report as follows: “The subject property is located on the east side of South Brentwood Boulevard between Carondelet Avenue and Bonhomme Avenue. The property is zoned HDC High Density Commercial District and contains a multi-tenant office building. The property currently features a monument sign with four tenant panels, a wall sign on the north elevation and a wall sign on the west elevation.
The applicant is proposing to remove the existing north elevation wall sign and install two new wall signs, one on the west elevation and one on the south elevation. The signs are constructed of vinyl faces with aluminum returns and are internally illuminated. The signs depict the name and logo of the building tenant, Moneta. The proposed signs are 24.69 square feet each. The signs are proposed above the first floor windows and bracket-mounted to the brick facade.
Based on the tenant’s location within a multi-tenant office building, the following sign is permitted by the Sign Code: “Ground floor office tenants with a substantial glass wall or window area and street frontage may erect a wall sign 12 square feet in area, but not more than 2 such signs shall be permitted for each building frontage.” On March 5, 2018, the Architectural Review Board approved a sign modification to allow a 24.97 square foot wall sign on the west elevation for the building owner Hoffman. The applicant is proposing a second sign measuring 24.69 square feet on the west elevation, which would require a sign modification based on the proposed size.
The Sign Code also states that wall signs should be installed on street frontages. The applicant is also proposing a 24.69 square foot wall sign on the south elevation, which is not a street frontage elevation. A sign modification is required to install a sign of the proposed size and in the proposed location.
While the proposed west elevation sign is larger than allowed by the Sign Code, the sign will appear compatible in terms of scale with the building and the existing wall sign. The proposed sign is constructed of high quality materials. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed west elevation sign is compatible with surrounding buildings and wall signs in terms of design, material and size.
The south elevation wall sign is not located on a street frontage and is located in close proximity to the west elevation sign. Staff does not believe a sign on a non-street frontage is compatible with the surrounding building character and does not support the location of the south elevation wall sign.
STAFFS RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE WEST ELEVATION WALL SIGN AS SUBMITTED AND TO DENY THE SOUTH ELEVATION WALL SIGN.
5
SHANNON BROWN STATES HIS NAME FOR THE RECORD (SB)
SB – Reasons for request is the current sign has limited exposure going southbound, trees along the north elevation face. West location is prime. We proposed the South sign because the West doesn’t have exposure to both directions of traffic. Feels South sign has more importance and would have more impact than West sign.
William Liebermann (WL) – Would you accept South sign without West sign?
SB – No, I don’t think that would accomplish our goal of Southbound traffic being able to see it.
Chairman Lichtenfeld - Appreciates MONETA and has enjoyed watching it grow over the past several decades. “I tend to agree with the staffs statement on it. I think we have too many signs at that Southwest corner of the building and I think what Mr. Liebermann was saying would be a good trade off but then we would have to consider having the sign on a non-street frontage part of the building.” The West facing sign looks very good. It matches in size, pretty close to the HOFFMAN and balances the building, but does not think that having to signs on the corner is correct. Understands the issue with Northbound traffic not being able to see it but states that Clayton has certain rules and requirements. I see only one sign at that corner working.
SB – “I’ve had that discussion with my client and if that’s the way it has to go, the West of course would be the one we want to pursue.” Could we keep the one on the North or modify the North sign that we plan on taking down, could we also do the west as well.
Chairman Lichtenfeld – It would seem to me that the North is the entrance to the building and you need a sign there and you’ve always had a sign there.
RL – They have a MONUMENT SIGN.
RR – Keep North and approve South and that because they are not side by side, on the corner I would feel better about that. Really the West face sign wouldn’t be as visible as you mentioned because you’re sliding past. That would be an alternative though have the North and South.
Chairman Lichtenfeld – A single sign, going back to what Will was indicating initially
RL – No I think he’s saying two signs North and South.
CG – Is the purpose of the signs for you more marketing or wayfinding? The reason I ask is because when I am looking for something I put it in my phone and my phone finds it. I don’t even look for a sign. It says you’ve arrived and I’m there and then you see the one over or near the door. If you want to have it as marketing that’s a different thing but wayfinding I don’t think you need two signs for anymore.
6
SB – Signs are psychological, they can make or break a company depending on how it looks and the size. I saw a sign recently, it was so big, almost annoying in a way, but when you have a firm carrying that much money it’s a sign of status. From my perspective there was some challenges of people not having phones to find a place and there’s a lot of traffic and they are looking for new clients.
RL – “I personally haven’t spoken yet, I think there should be one sign on the street frontage. There’s already the HOFFMAN SIGN there’s already a MONUMENT SIGN. I think one sign on the street frontage as according to code is what we should have. I don’t think it should be on the North or the South side.”
SB – “Just the West.”
RL – “Just the West.”
CG – Well I think the West also, with your address being on Brentwood is more prestigious as to being at your address on the building as opposed to the alley so I would think you’d want to advertise right on Brentwood. “You can see those signs, I think, that’s my opinion.”
RR – References Signage Code – one sign of a certain size. So for us to grant two means we have to overrule our own code and at twice the size and then set a precedence that everyone else would also want.
QUESTION FOR STAFF – NON-STREET FACING SIGNS AND THE ALLEY
Anna Krane (AK) – Our sign codes states that all signs should be located at first floor ceiling height and should be located on street frontages. We only consider the street frontage and an alley in our definition is not a street frontage, it is an alley and so that makes that southern property line that they have not a street frontage property line because there is another property between them and Bonhomme.
Chairman Lichtenfeld – How does the MONUMENT SIGN fit into this? Does that fit in at all is that in addition too, is that separate?
AK – They are different sections of the code, we’ve historically allowed them to have the MONUMENT SIGN and wall signs are separate from that.
Chairman Lichtenfeld – “It sounds like we are going toward a single sign, is that correct?”
------BOARD MEMBERS NOD IN AGREEANCE------
7 “ …And recommending that it be on the West facing façade of the building which would then require the removal of the MONETA GROUP SIGN on the North face, is that correct?
------EVERYONE BUT WILL NODS IN AGREEANCE------
WL – I could be swayed to having some sort of signage on the front of the building where people are coming in.
CG – That’s the MONUMENT SIGN.
WL – Oh…ok good to know.
Chairman Lichtenfeld – So we’re trying not to duplicate signage and keep it as clean as possible and no signage on the South face which is the alley façade. Are you in agreement with that?
SB – I can understand the reason for the decision and the direction you’re trying to go but from my perspective from running a design signage business for quite a few years now, there’s reasons for that and the principles asked me for that. They are trying to get that exposure and I am going to represent them to the fullest. “I accept your decision and I’ll take it back.”
Chairman Lichtenfeld – “Do you need to review that with the client or can we proceed tonight?”
SB – I asked if the South was refused would the West be sufficient, and they said yes
RR – there’s an option to move the West from the corner to the middle of the West facing façade.
SB – I don’t think that section would work we would lose the North bound traffic completely. I think it looks nice and balanced with HOFFMAN on the left and MONETA on the right side. We can look and say could we move it up to the center of that face, but I don’t think it would look that good.
RR – I don’t have a problem with it where it is on the West just giving you the option to move it on the West.
SB – Ok great, I’ll take that back to them, but I think were we have it looks best
Chairman Lichtenfeld – “I think we are ready to proceed with a modification of the Staff recommendation because you would also be removing the MONETA GROUP SIGN near the entrance facing North. I think that has to be in the recommendation.”
RR – “I MOVE TO MOTION TO APPROVE THE MONETA SIGN WITH THESE GRAPHICS LOCATED ON THE WEST FACING ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING. ELIMINATING THE SOUTH FACING MONETA SIGN
8 AND ALSO MAKING NOTE THAT TO ACCOMPLISH THIS SIGN THEY NEED TO REMOVE THE MONETA GROUP SIGN FROM THE NORTH FACE OF THE ELEVATION.”
RL – SECOND
MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED
1 TUSCANY PARK – ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD – ALTERATION/EXTERIOR RENOVATION
Director Susan M. Istenes read the staff report as follows: “ The approximately 16,601 square foot site is located at the northwest corner of the Tuscany Park Subdivision along Big Bend Boulevard. The property has a zoning designation of R-2 Single Family Dwelling District. Construction of a new house is nearing completion on the subject property. The Plan Commission and Architectural Review Board approved the new house and site plan on March 6, 2017. In the approved plan, the existing wrought iron fence along Big Bend Boulevard was marked to remain and additional evergreen landscaping was proposed to provide screening. The owner has since revised the site plan and landscape plan to include a solid fence.
The proposed project consists of the construction of a 6-foot high wood privacy fence along the western property line. The proposed fence will be just inside of the existing iron fence along Big Bend Boulevard. There is also a section of east-west fence proposed at the north end of the driveway.
Section 405.1900 of the Zoning Regulations requires that all fences located in the front yard in single-family zoning districts be approved by the Architectural Review Board prior to installation.
“Front yard masonry garden walls, planting boxes, retaining walls, plantings or ornamental or decorative fences may be erected as part of new construction, up to four (4) feet above the grade level in the front yard, provided such structure is an integral part of the architectural feature of the principal structure, is in compliance with sight distance standards and is approved by the Architectural Review Board.”
Historically, the Architectural Review Board has considered requests for front yard fences that are not in conformance with the zoning requirements. For instance, 6 foot tall ornamental or decorative fences (not solid wood, chain link or vinyl) have been approved on secondary front yards of corner lots when a sufficient landscape buffer is provided along the street and the fence style and location is consistent with neighborhood character.
The proposed design and materials of the fence are not consistent with the Architectural Review Board’s preference for ornamental or decorative fencing in front yards. The proposed front yard fence style and location is also not consistent with neighborhood character. The majority of frontages along Big Bend Boulevard feature a combination of stone knee walls, metal fences and
9 dense vegetation. The proposed solid wood fence would also not leave room for any setback and landscape buffer along the sidewalk. Staff believes that restoring the existing wrought iron fence would be more consistent with the neighborhood character. The applicant could install landscaping inside of the fence for privacy, similar to the lot on the south side of Tuscany Park.
The Tuscany Park Architectural Control Committee has reviewed the proposed plans and provided conditional approval. The Committee has requested that the existing metal fence is restored and left in place, with the new fence installed east of the existing fence. They have also requested that the east-west portion of fence proposed at the end of the driveway is wrought iron, not wood, to be consistent with neighborhood materials. Staff has concerns about how the two fences installed next to each other will appear. Maintenance between fences can also be difficult and the homeowner will still be responsible for the vegetation around the metal fence. Staff supports the request of the Committee regarding the east-west portion of fence being wrought iron.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. THE EXISTING NORTH-SOUTH FENCE ALONG BIG BEND SHALL BE RESTORED OR REPLACED WITH A SIMILAR MATERIAL AND DESIGN FENCE; 2. THE EAST-WEST FENCE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF WROUGHT IRON OR SIMILAR METAL DESIGN.
DEREK SUN STATES HIS NAME FOR THE RECORD (DS)
DS – Talks about other wooded/vinyl fences that he has seen down BIG BEND ROAD.
AK – Makes the comment that some of the fences that are being looked at are not within the City of Clayton.
DS – Lists off addresses with fences that he has provided
AK – Some of these are within Clayton limits but are in different neighborhoods and others are not in the city limits.
DS – All of these are on BIG BEND and it’s a short drive from my house to these houses. When they purchased the lot in June, there was not a lot of foot traffic and now that school is back in session. There is not room to put trees between rusted wrought iron fence and new wooded fence.
Board Member - Who Owns the wrought iron fence is it the subdivision or you and is it on your property
DS – I think the subdivision but it is on my property
10 Chairman Lichtenfeld – I would assume if they own the fence it would be their job to replace the fence.
DS – Neighbors and trustees don’t mind the fence and kind of all agree with the approach. As a part of the proposal we are going to whitewash it and paint it. If it needed anything – we would restore it and fix it. It is in the approval from the trustees.
Chairman Lichtenfeld – The Committee wants it restored and our staff recommendation says that it should be either restored or replaces with similar material and design and the ARB agrees that the wrought iron fence should stay and be restored to the highest level that you as a homeowner and we as the city would like. Similar to 12 TUSCANY PARK that needs work also. Does anyone disagree with the wrought iron fence?
RR – I am curious how you would maintain in between the two fences?
CG – Especially when you don’t see it
Chairman Lichtenfeld – Yes, you wouldn’t see it but the public would and your architecture control committee would as well. How would you maintain that space?
DS – Weed eater with regular spiny head, really easy to weed between the fence. Right now, we have a construction fence up and we maintain the in between just fine.
Chairman Lichtenfeld – So that is a construction fence that we see right now?
DS – Yes, it’s a new house and we had to put up a construction fence.
Chairman Lichtenfeld – Ok
DS – States concerns about trash on property, people walking by throwing trash
CG – Why do we have to keep the wrought iron if its falling and rusting and has issues I don’t see why we would keep it. BIG BEND is a busy street traffic wise, a solid wood would block some of that noise, traffic wise anyway. The iron fence would just be a double fence. I know the code says to do the iron fence.
Chairman Lichtenfeld – Is there sufficient room to, if we have one fence, I’m not saying which fence, but that there could then be landscaping on the street side of the fence to soften the appearance of the fence, whatever material it might be. CG?
CG – He could buy bigger size plants
11 Brian Maguire (BM) – Reference new home on Clayton road with stone pillars in between parts of the wooden fence that would possibly work.
Chairman Lichtenfeld – If the subdivision owns the fence wouldn’t it then be their responsibility to restore/replace the fence.
DS – There is two stone posts and no gate, the gate is not operable. The posts are rusted and decaying.
BM – Would you consider doing a limestone pillar every 8 feet or so like they did at a house on Clayton Rd?
DS – Sometime down the road, it’s expensive. We spent a lot of money already and would just like to move in and have a privacy fence.
Chairman Lichtenfeld – Were concerned with having two fences and the maintenance required in the in between but we understand the concern over security and privacy. So I’m not sure if were going to be able to come to a conclusion tonight. You need to talk with your Architecture committee.
RL – I would like to hear form your trustees as to who they would like to maintain the wrought iron fence. It seems to me like a subdivision fence. Which would make it their job, not yours. Tuscany Park’s.
BM – I don’t believe the fence can be saved. It seems a resubmittal would be the best solution
Chairman Lichtenfeld – Come back with answers to our questions from your trustees. We can continue this so we can get a better grasp on it next meeting.
RL – Were looking for a way to have only one fence. We think the wrought iron is their responsibility.
CG – What kind of materials does your subdivision allowed. There are some aluminum fences that are close to the price of a wood. If it is approvable.
BM – What we are trying to say is that you might not need to keep that wrought iron fence.
Chairman Lichtenfeld – We are suggesting the applicant go back to the committee and talk with them.
DS – Even if we did the wrought iron I still have no privacy and people walk past my house.
12 RL – I appreciate that they walk by, but you knew that when you bought the house. You bought on a major public street.
RR – We’re giving you an opportunity to table this, so we don’t have to vote because if we vote we’re going to deny you and you’ll have to wait a year before reapplying. So were giving you the chance to go back and talk with your trustees and committees and come back with more answers.
RL – I would bring a trustee with you
CG – Or a neighbor.
Chairman Lichtenfeld – We would like to see this move on, but we would like you to talk with your trustee and bring a trustee back with you. Do we table or continue?
Susan Istenes (SI) – I would suggest continuing it to the meeting after next or indefinitely.
Chairman Lichtenfeld – We will continue this indefinitely.
BM – I MAKE A MOTION TO CONTINUE
RR – SECOND
MOTION TO CONTINUE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED
159 CARONDELET PLAZA – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT – RESTAURANT CUP
Director Susan M. Istenes summarized the following staff report: “The subject property is located on the north side of Carondelet Plaza between South Hanley Road and Forsyth Boulevard. The property has a zoning designation of Planned Unit Development (PUD). The restaurant space measures 1,699 square feet and will have 38 seats.
The restaurant will be open Monday through Sunday from 7:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. The applicant describes the restaurant as “a fast service restaurant that makes and sells sandwiches, wraps, salads and smoothies.” A liquor license will not be required. Delivery service from the restaurant is not proposed, but a catering service to schools and business will be provided.
Deliveries to the restaurant will be made through the rear entry from the loading docks in the commercial parking garage. Trash will be stored in the shared trash compactor located in the garage. The applicant does not intend to participate in a recycling program.
13 Conditional uses are those types of uses that are considered to be desirable, necessary or convenient to the community but which by their nature can create additional traffic volume, parking demand beyond the development's capacity, and/or a detrimental impact on adjacent or neighboring properties due to noise, pollutants or other characteristics associated with that particular use. Restaurants are permitted in this zoning district subject to approval of a conditional use permit as per Article VII of Chapter 405 and the following criteria:
1) The proposed use is compatible with surrounding uses and with the surrounding neighborhood; >> The proposed restaurant is located along a pedestrian oriented block. The surrounding land uses include restaurants, retail, office and multi-family residential. The proposed use appears to be compatible with surrounding uses. 2) The comparative size, floor area and mass of the proposed use and/or proposed structure are appropriate and reasonable in relation to adjacent structures and buildings on surrounding properties and in the surrounding neighborhood; >> The proposed size of the restaurant is 1,699 square feet and appears to be comparable to others in the Downtown area. 3) The proposed use will not adversely affect the general appearance of the neighborhood due to the location of the proposed use on the parcel of ground or due to the materials used in the construction of any proposed buildings being greatly dissimilar to surrounding appearances of buildings or due to the architecture of any proposed building being of such nature as to create visual disharmony within the neighborhood; >> No exterior alterations are being proposed at this time. 4) The proposed use will not adversely affect the neighborhood in terms of water runoff, noise transfer or heat generation due to significant amount of hard surfaced areas for buildings, sidewalk, drives, parking and service areas; >> At this time, staff does not anticipate adverse effects with respect to water runoff, noise transfer or heat generation. 5) The frequency and duration of various indoor and outdoor activities and special events associated with the proposed use will not have a deleterious impact on the surrounding area; >> The applicant does intend to have an outdoor dining area. Outdoor dining for restaurants along Carondelet Plaza is common and encouraged to help establish the street life. The applicant will have to obtain an Outdoor Dining Permit prior to
14 operation. Staff does not believe that operations associated with the proposed restaurant will have negative impacts on the surrounding area. 6) The proposed use is likely to remain in existence for a reasonable length of time and not become vacant or unused and whether such use involves the presence of unusual, single- purpose structures or components of a temporary nature; >> The proposed use does not involve single-purpose structures or temporary components. 7) The proposed use complies with the standards of the Zoning Code and good planning practices; >> Staff is of the opinion that the use complies with the Zoning Code.
8) The landscape plan for premises to be occupied by the proposed use is adequate in regard to the creation and maintenance of landscaped areas and the use of buffers for screening of the use; >> The structure is built to the sidewalk and no landscaping is proposed as part of this project.
9) The impact of projected vehicular traffic volumes and site access is not detrimental with regard to the surrounding traffic flow, pedestrian safety and accessibility of emergency vehicles and equipment; >> Existing site access is adequate and there are no proposed changes. 10) The proposed use complies with the parking requirements as set forth in the Zoning Code and does not add parking demand that cannot adequately be handled by on-site off-street parking; >> Because the restaurant is less than 3,000 square feet, off-street parking for patrons is not required. There is sufficient public parking available in the shared garage and along the street to support the demand. Two employee parking spaces are located in the garage. 11) The number of transit movements on abutting streets and on minor streets in the neighborhood to be generated by or associated with the proposed use will not cause significant increases in hourly or daily traffic levels; >> The proposed use is not likely to affect transit movements.
15 12) The proposed use will not significantly increase demands on fire and Police protection services in excess of the individual demands of adjacent land uses and whether the proposed use will not present any real or potential fire or public safety hazard; >> Staff is of the opinion that there will not be a significant increase in demand for fire and police protection services.
13) Added noise levels generated by activities associated with the proposed use will not adversely impact the ambient noise level of the surrounding area and neighborhood; >> Outdoor dining on the street is popular and staff does not believe the proposed restaurant will adversely impact the ambient noise level of the surrounding area. 14) The activities associated with the proposed use will not generate obnoxious odors to the detriment of the surrounding area; >> Staff does not anticipate that the restaurant will generate obnoxious odors. 15) The intensity, duration or frequency of lighting associated with the proposed use will not adversely impact adjacent properties or significantly increase the ambient level of night light in the neighborhood; >> There is no additional exterior lighting proposed.
16) Where a proposed use has the potential for adverse impacts, sufficient measures have been or will be taken by the applicant that would negate, to an acceptable level, such potentially adverse impacts. (Ord. No. 5814 §1(9.9), 4-27-04) >> At this time, there does not appear to be adverse impacts associated with the proposed use.
Staff is of the opinion that the proposed restaurant meets the requirements contained in the regulations governing conditional uses. The restaurant space is compatible in size to other restaurants and adequate public parking will be available. The proposed hours of operation and method of deliveries are consistent with other restaurants in this area. Based on the information regarding the operation of the restaurant as provided by the applicant, staff is of the opinion that the proposed restaurant will be compatible with surrounding uses.
STAFFS RECOMMENDATION IS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION:
16 1. THERE SHALL BE NO OUTDOOR MUSIC OR SPEAKERS TO AMPLIFY MUSIC OR SIMILAR AUDIO. 2. DELIVERIES TO THE RESTAURANT SHALL COMPLY WITH CHAPTER 355, SECTION 355.030 OF THE CITY’S CODE.
VIJAYA VANUKURU STATES HER NAME FOR THE RECORD (VV)
VV – Gives background of TROPICAL SMOOTHIE CAFÉ.
Chairman Lichtenfeld – IS there food other than smoothies?
VV – Yes! Wraps, salads, flatbreads, vegetarian options. Self-Serve
Chairman Lichtenfeld – I think it looks good. I think we’ll be interested in seeing the menu. We don’t need it for our vote but were excited to see it.
RR – Do you understand the approval with recommendations?
VV – I knew the first recommendation but was going to ask about the second one
AK – I will send it to you it just says that vehicles cannot idle in traffic lanes.
Chairman Lichtenfeld – We have a recommended staff approval for the CUP to the Board of Aldermen. You mentioned the October 9th meeting being the one you’d like to be on
VV – Yes
Chairman Lichtenfeld – Any other questions
CG – I have one just logistics questions, addressed to Stephanie Karr – is it too early to be here since the lease is pending
Stephanie Karr – There is a letter of intent, if something falls through the CUP would terminate and a new applicant would have to reapply
Chairman Lichtenfeld – “Any other questions?”
------NONE------
“And you’re comfortable with the two recommendations?
VV – Yes
Chairman Lichtenfeld – Do we have a Motion?
17 WL – I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE TWO RECOMMENDATIONS.
RR – SECOND
MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED
1900 (07:00 PM) END OF NEW AND OLD BUSINESS
1900 (07:00 PM) BEGINNING OF CITY BUSINESS – LAND USE DISCUSSION ITEMS
CITY BUSINESS LAND USE DISCUSSION- EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES
ARTICLE IV “NONCONFORMING USES”
Will Liebermann is the member informing us on this Article, but didn’t he have his microphone on. Went over what the article states to educate other board members.
SI – Board of Adjustment deals with these because they are variances.
ARTICLE XXV “OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS”
Richard Lintz is the member who is speaking on this Article. How to combat apartment packing, hotel/motels with event centers and accommodation for parking,
Bicycle parking and the Lime Bikes and Scooters that are becoming a popular mode of transportation.
HAVING NO FURTHER BUSINESS BEFORE THE COMMISSION, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 1948 (07:48 PM)
_______________________________ Recording Secretary