Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2017 06 08

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 11, 2017 Page 15 of 18 Zuccaro says when there is a landmarked structure, the HPC allows modern additions to historic structures through an alteration certificate. There are criteria for alteration to historic buildings, portions of building, and additions. Moline asks what was the nexus that brought this issue before the HPC. Zuccaro says the HPC reviews any PUD within Old Downtown and provides comments. Brauneis asks if there is a standard procedure. The applicant has pointed out some potential flaws in whether HPC received a proper presentation. It concerns me that they didn't get the benefit of a full presentation. Johnson says I am not stating there were any flaws, just disappointment in the content. We would have liked to have had more content. The HPC is a referral source very similar to Public Works, Parks and Rec, and Xcel. Zuccaro says I am not sure what information the HPC had in their packet. I expect they will receive the full set of PUD plans as well as the supplemental information provided by the applicant for the referral. Sheets asks if the applicant would be willing to put a condition in the resolution about access to the parking lot if it is already part of the agreement, but not mentioned in the Staff package. Johnson says I feel it has already been addressed with the draft agreement reviewed from the City. Zuccaro says because the future use of the property is not fully defined, we may not want to put any permanent restrictions on the property as far as access for these buildings. Sheets says I think my fellow commissioners are suggesting that he is relying on the City to not negate the possibility that deliveries will be made the way we described. If we are talking about the opposite, we can leave the door open to be flexible. Zuccaro says that is one option to assure future access. The other option is to recognize that on -street deliveries may be appropriate in this circumstance. Restricting the rest of the property may not be appropriate. Johnson says we are not talking about Lot 2 and the parking lot design. Accommodations could be made for the parking lot to appropriately accommodate the building. There is a relationship between the two. While we don't want to lose parking spaces, there is opportunity to possibly provide for better and easy access. Hsu says with respect to interpretation of the alley being a public street, is that Staff's view? Zuccaro says in Section 16.16.50, "each lot shall have vehicular access to a public street." What is being referenced by the applicant is our definition of a street, which says "a street means the entire width for the boundary lines of every way which provides for public use for the purpose of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, the placement of utilities, and includes the terms road, highway, land, place, avenue, alley, and other similar designations."There is a connection between subdivisions having street access and the definition of street includes alley. To further clarify, we go to the definition of alley which means "a minor right-of-way dedicated to public use which gives a secondary means of vehicular access to the back or side of properties otherwise abutting a street and which may be used for public utility purposes." Parbois Place was a subdivision with conversion of an alley into some type of street frontage regardless of the definition. How does it actually act and function? Parbois Place became street frontage for two lots. Staff recognizes there may be some contradictions in the code when you look at definitions. It can be interpreted in different ways. Staff felt for clarity, because of possible contradictions in the code, it was better to acknowledge that a waiver should be provided if someone wants alley only frontage for a lot. Modification is the technical term in our subdivision code. Ryan Costner, DAJ Design Costner presents and describes material board. Public Comment: None. 17