10/25/1976 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. , e Mr. Saul pointed out that staff notes and the applicant's statement both stated that the General Plan indicates primarily University use in this area. In addition, the General Plan text deals with the question of the existing commercial strip along Franklin Boulevard. However, the University informa- tion submitted indicated no intention of acquiring additional property. So the Commission took the position when considering this request that it was a minor adjustment between existing University ownership and the remaining privately owned residential and commercial development along Franklin. Councilman Haws asked how expansion could be provided for a commercial use when in fact it was conflicting with a residential district. He asked too about the number of parking spaces required to meet code provisions. And assuming that parking space was a problem, he said, how would the proposal coincide with the 30% transportation plan. Mr. Saul answered that there was no single particular policy covering every situation with regard to expansion of an existing business. He called attention to staff notes and applicant's statement, both citing community goals statements and certain policy state- ments with respect to retention and encouragement of industry, particularly existinb business falling within the "clean" classification. He added that conflicts could be pointed out between policies themselves and that was one reason for these determinations - to weigh the evidence and decide which would prevail. He reviewed the background of the zoning in the area when the Bakery was established and subsequent changes permitted by previous Commissions and Councils, all clearly stating that the Bakery was a major asset to the city and noting no objections from the public concerning its operation at that location. He felt it important to take that into consideration now when e the Bakery was at the point of expanding as contemplated esarlier when those zone changes and permits were granted. With regard to ~arking, Mr. Saul said that spaces are required on a ratio to the per-square-foot gross area of an establishment. When speaking of the relationship between parking requirements and 30% trip reduction, he said, code provisions for parking have not been reduced. Serious consideration would have to be given any such proposed reduction in code requirements, he said. He added that although theatre parking was provided under a conditional use permit and to lesser standards, it was committed to theatre use. Councilwoman Shirey asked about the relationship of the traffic pattern to the proposed Bakery expansion and the blocking off of 13th Avenue at Moss/Villard. Mr. Saul answered that the present blocking of 13th was a temporary closure under the traffic diverter policy to allow public works evaluation of the effect a permanent closure would have on traffic patterns in that area. That closure would come to the Council if any action is required for permanent closure. He noted the proposed park development put forth by Williams Bakery for the publicly owned property between Franklin and 13th, saying it was not related to the Bakery expansion in the sense that it was an integral part or requirement of the expansion or of this zone change request. Councilman Haws asked the status of the Bakery under C-2 zoning, whether that was an allowed use. Also, whether parking for an establishment would be allowed across the street and whether there were other vacant parcels within e one mile of the Bakery that could be used for parking. Mr. Saul responded that the Bakery would be permitted as a conditional use under C-2. He added that the Commission had recommended a code amendment to allow such conditional uses in C-2 zones. With regard to parking, Mr. Saul said space for parking is Sib 10/25/76 - 11