10/25/1976 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

required and must be within 400 feet of the site for which it is provided, so the parking across the street would be a permitted use. With the exception of the theatre lot, he said, there was no other property or site that would satisfy that requirement. 4It Councilman Bradley asked whether the expansion could be accomplished through a conditional use permit. Mr. Saul explained that the properties proposed for parking were now R-l, and parking is not allowed in R-l zones under a condi- tional use permit. Councilwoman Beal wondered why parking would be permitted as a conditional use in commercial zones but not in residential zones. She suggested that some other use of the parking area could be made under a commercial zone, should the Bakery ever move to another location. Mr. Saul noted code requirements call for parking provisions in RG, R-3, and R-4 zones but not on parcels separate from a development. He said both staff and the Commission feel ex- pansion of commercial zoning in this area was warranted. To consider other than a C-2 zone would ~esult in University ownership where a variety of facili- ties could be installed such as student housing; that, he said, would result in a very small strip of high-density residential use. There were no findings, he said, that would substantiate other than coqmercial use in this particular area. J.rs. Beal said she was in support of this proposal, that she was quarr'ling only with the Commission's position with regard to high-density housillg in the area. Councilman Haws asked if there was a need for additional parking in the area under discussion regardless of the Bakery'S parking needs. Mr. Saul thought that could be considered from several viewpoints, one of which was dealing with the need of the Bakery for expansion to meet increased production demands ~ that would call for a judgment whether to accept that as a public need. If ~ the Bakery was expanded, provision for parking would be required, hence the need for parking. Councilman Bradley asked if requirements for additional parking in industrial zones was more intense than the requirements in commercial zones, whether there was any way to impose a requirement for a nonconforming industrial use in a commercial zone. Mr. Saul said it would depend upon the activity - whether it occurs in an industrial or commercial zone was irrelevant. Vern Gleaves, attorney representing Williams Bakery, on rebuttal, noted the University's designation expressly negated any extension of University use north of 14th Avenue, so this proposal would be an ideal situation for the subject property. He called attention too to the fact that the parking pro- posed would be a replacement of parking area displaced because of the expansion, it would not constitute an altogether new parking provision. Mr. Gleaves also remarked about the compromise with regard to the housing and the removal of only One house, and that it was one already condemned. The buffering to be provided, he said, was in full compliance with the housing goals of the city. Also, expansion of an existing industry to meet the public need of increased production as the demand for bakery goods expanded. He added that if further expan~ion is needed in the future, it would not be considered at this site, rather it would occur at a satellite operation, perhaps even in another community. Mr. Gleaves continued that joint use of the theatre parking across the street was recognized as a problem because of peak loads or need for both the theatre e and the bakery occurring at about the same time. However, use of mass transit - or walking was more or less out of the question because of necessary nighttime operations of the bakery. He too noted the code requirement for off-street parki~g within 400 feet of a development. He added that the park proposal was 10/26/76 - 12 5\1