Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-02-01; Design Review Board; MinutesMINUTES Meeting of: DESIGN REVIEW Board Time of Meeting: 5:OO p.m. Date of Meeting: February 1, 1989 Place of Meeting: City Council Chambers - (Regular Meeting) CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Schramm called meeting to order at 5:OO p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Chairperson Schramm, Board Members, McCoy, McFadden, Rombotis and Hall. Absen t : None. Staff Present: Chris Salomone, Housing and Redevelopment Director Management Analyst Attorney Patricia A. Cratty, Senior Ron Ball, Assistant City Lance Schulte, City Planning Bob Wojcik, City Engineering PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Chairperson Sc hramm . DESIGN REVIEW Board PROCEDURES: Chairperson Schramm read Design Review Board meeting Procedures as a transparency was used to show them for the audience. PUBLIC COMMENT: There were no requests to address the Board. ITEM 1. CIPPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of December 21, 1988, approved with Members Rombotis and McCoy abstaining on item 1 (RP 87-ll(A) CDP 88-1(A) Village Faire). CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: ITEM 2. RP/CUP/CDP 88-6 KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN DRIVE THROUGH Item trailed to allow staff to display exhibits. ITEM 3. RP 87-ll(A)CDP 88-l(fi) VILLAGE FCSIRE Members Rombotis and McCoy excused themselves from the platform to sit in audience due to conflict with this project. Chris Salomone, Housing and Redevelopment Director, gave report explaining project and giving chronology of events leading to request. Staff stated that the project was returned to discuss the 3,600 square restaurant proposal ~ CHR4MM [CFADDEN iCOY .OMBOTIS ALL - MINUTES Design Review Board February 1 1989 Page 2 which was approved at a prior meeting but conditioned with regard to outdoor eating area. Staff reported that the applicant asked that the Board consider three options with a fourth which staff must bring to Board's attention. Staff stated that the applicant was available to discuss options. Options to be considered and explained by staff were as follows: 1. Remove the condition that addresses outdoor eating area table service and allow it to be. done with the approval of the Redevelopment Director. Mr. Salomone suggested that the ordinance and Local Coastal Plan in relation to how restaurants and outdoor eating areas are treated can be reviewed and perhaps make some recommendations prior to the occupancy of the restaurant. This could be something that could be done as part of the review of the master plan for the Redevelopment Area. Staff stated that if Board were to recommend this option tonight that the Local Coastal Plan would need to be amended because it does not conform. Amendment to the Parking Ordinance and Local Coastal Plan could be 'done over the future months. 2. Option 2 was recommended in the original outdoor eating package which was to use the "Crazy Burro" approach in that the inside eating area equivalent to the outside eating area is closed off when used. This was done with the Crazy Burro restaurant and is reviewed annually. This gave the operator of the Crazy Burro the option of using the outdoor eating area. 3. Staff stated that this consideration is proposed by the applicant and was not in the original packet. To allow outside eating area the same parking ratio a5 the inside area, 1 to 250 and to allow the total excess spaces to go toward any outdoor area as designated on exhibit. Basis for this rational, is the original project was parked at 1 to 250 which would allow an unlimited amount of 2,000 square foot restaurant areas which basically this is saying use the additional parking spaces to allow 1 to 250 ! MINUTES Design Review Board February 1, 1989 Page 3 for additional eating areas. The applicant has shown a new eating area on the southwest corner of the project deck adjacent to the Twin Inns building. 4. Staff stated that the fourth implied option which is not spelled out in the applicants letter is that it be parked 1 to 100 as per code. Staff stated that the applicant ha5 provided a new parking breakdown for Board consideration. It states that the project as built has shrunk from original approved project. Actual construction is 1500 square feet smaller than that which was approved and parked. Restaurant would actually be 400 square feet smaller. Total excess spaces totaled a little over thirteen for the whole project. Adding 15% reduction total would actually be 15 spaces for overall project which are unobligated. Staff is in the process of verifying this calculation and would get this data from Senior Building Inspec tor. Member Hall had a question on project size. Staff stated that project size was 69,900. Member Hall felt project should be continued until Board had actual figures. Member McFadden stated that on Resolution #133 , #3 finding is actually a condition. Staff stated that this had been corrected. Also wanted to be sure that Board is not deleting condition 23 and it remain in place, 2,000 limit hold other than this restaurant. Member McFadden dl50 asked for a total review of the parking situation. Concerned on how conditions are to be implemented, for example; employee parking was to be north of Grand and signage. Thirty public parking places on east side of Washington credited to project and would like to see them usable and not park and ride facility perhaps could have hour limit, three hour for example. Staff asked if there would be any value in discussing this contingent. Member McFadden objected to discussion without the numbers. Assistant City Attorney, Ron Ball, commented that the business license application in solution number 1 is not a discretionary permit that it waswministerial permit and conditions cannot be placed on it. Stating that the Redevelopment Permit could be conditioned not c .- MINUTES Design Revier Board February 1, 1989 Page 4 the business license. Also that parking in the public parking area could be handled in the three hour limit separate and apart from this project. Member McFadden also requested that staff bring in information on what it means when the term "common usage" is used. PUBLIC HECIRING OPENED: No one wished to speak. Public hearing closed. Member McFadden suggested that the item be continued to February 15th. ITEM 2. RP/CUP/CDP 88-6 KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN DRIVE-THROUGH Chris Salomone presented staff report stating this item was brought before the Board at their previous meeting with a recommendation for denial. Staff was able to give clear direction to applicant for the drive up window at the southeast corner of Madison and Elm Clvenue. Staff continued stating that issues were access to project off of Elm Avenue and Madison Avenue and exit out onto Elm Avenue this caused on site circulation problems. Other issue was parking, however enough direction was given that applicant was able to work with staff to resolve issues. Staff is proposing and recommending approval that Elm Avenue entrance be completely blocked off and additional exit be created on alley way which would allow better circulation. Staff noted that the handicapped space has been relocated on the northern edge where exit used to be allowing the handicapped persons to exit and enter on a pedestrian walkway and never having to conflict with on site circulation. The actual drive up window has been reduced to comply with all ordinances and is parked at 1 to 200 square feet. Additional landscaping was also created. Overall building reduced, solved majority of pedestrian and vehicle problems and also able to increase landscaping. Staff has recommended approval of project with these changes . Member McFadden stated staff report doesn't reflect plan. Staff explained difference and matter resolved. Member McFadden also had question regarding trash enclosure and driveway. (Juestion on distance of wall from driveway. Staff member Bob Wojcik stated that wall would be removed or reduced to a height of 32 inches to increase the site distance down the alley way. So there would be a minimum of 24 feet MINUTES Design Review Board February 1, 1989 Page 5 with a 32 inch high wall or remove wall completely in which case there would be an additional width on driveway. Or wall can be eliminated and cars kept. Member McCoy had question on condition 31 wording. Staff member Bob Wojcik stated that the only triggering mechanism was a building permit to insure repair to the sidewalk. Member McCoy felt it was something the City should take care of. Mr. Wojcik stated that condition can be changed to match other requirements. Applicant Jim Landry, representing Kentucky Fried Chicken addressed Board. Stated they were in the process of incorporating all the items as Board suggested. Mr. Landry had concern regarding the alley and wanted assurance that it would always be open. Staff member Wojcik answered query about alley stating that it is currently being used by the other businesses and residences both along Madison and Jefferson Streets so there was already established use of the alley. Rny vacation of any public property has to go to the City Council and it would be engineering’s recommendation that a vacation not be granted because it is a vital circulation in the area. Staff cannot guarantee that it would never be closed off, recommendation would be to not vacate alley. Since no one else wished to speak public testimony closed. Member Schramm had questions in regarding to mention that there would be a crosswalk so cars going past would recognize handicapped space, maybe a cross hatch, she did not see on the plan would like to see that on the plan. Condition 31 was referred to and suggestion made to incorporate sidewalk repair with Elm Street driveway improvement and incorporate with other public improvements. When building permits are issued, that is the time to fix sidewalk. Assistant City Attorney Ron Ball also cited that the City retain legal power to vacate or abandon alley way by proper procedures. Member McFadden moved to approve Resolutions 124 approving Negative Declaration and 136 and 137 with the following conditions: MINUTES SCHRAMM MCFADDEN MCCOY ROMBOTI S HALL Design Review Board February 1, 1989 Page 6 Approval to include 32 inch wall going north from the trash enclosure to the beginning of the 24 foot driveway down the alley. Condition 31 be corrected to say that work will commence with the issuance of building permit. Striping be shown on the site plan. DEPARTMENTAL ITEM 4. PRELIMINARY REVIEW - STRAUB OFFICE BUILD1 NG . Staff member Chris Salomone stated this was a preliminary review of a proposed project. Staff stated that two schemes of an office building on Oak and State are provided. Staff is asking for some guidance on the direction applicant is going to take in order save time in process. Staff wanted to address some obvious conditions for this site. Qpplicant Michael Straub, 542 Oak Street addressed Board stating he would present both schemes. First being a building approximately 9,500-10,000 square feet and the second being 14,000 square feet. Question applicant had was concerning parking and intensity of development City wanted to have in the area. Member Rombotis stated scheme one parking under building - too close to corner and would like to open up an entry feature and have it step back from State. Member Hall stated he has met with Mr. Straub and discussed this project. Member Hall stated he liked under the building type parking but had concern with it being architecturally pleasing; not be just straight walls, some sort of facade hung to the walls and that it have roof lines, for example a balcony. Member McFadden asked staff about cottages north of site. Wanted to know if anything was going on there. Staff responded that there was no known change going on there. As far as other sites in vicinity, there may be some minor changes. Member Schramm stated she liked the idea of underground parking. Applicant spoke on parking plan issues and maximum amount of parking. Member Rombotis I MINUTES Design Review Board February 1, 1989 Page 7 stated he would rely on engineering recommendation. Member McFadden stated she had concern with 40% compact. Member McCoy stated concern with intensity and 2nd story set back. 1st story on property line is acceptable. Also that medical uses would not be allowed at this parking ratio. Chris Salomone stated that they do allow parking to back onto an alley with 24' back up requirement which complies. Since there was no further items for discussion meeting adjourned at 5:58 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, BIB1 LERK SECRETRRY I1 Red eve 1 o pmen t Acting Minutes Clerk