
Originally Posted by
Pete
After several surrounding property owners voiced strong concerns about parking, noise and light pollution, the two sides decided to continue the decision of the DDRC until the next meeting in September.
BUT... After all those complaints and Lisa Chronister from the Planning Department reminding everyone that 1) there are existing city ordinances to address those issues and that the applicant had already stated they planned to follow them; and 2) this was a permitted use under planning guidelines and the only thing the DDRC is there to determine if the design met it's own guidelines...
STILL committee members talked about not 'liking' the size of the back deck and other things that seem to be out of their purview. They also suggested the rear deck be decreased in size, although it wasn't clear how that would begin to fit into their own guidelines.
Reminder that this is a tiny building on a small lot, so without significant outdoor space I'm sure this venture would not be economically feasible.
So, the applicant graciously agreed to meet with the property owners and discuss these matters, although I know that has already happened once.
BTW, there was tons of talk about how this use isn't appropriate for the neighborhood. Of course, bars and restaurants are expressly allowed and in fact you don't even have to apply for ABC-2 (which is what this will be).
This is going to an on-going battle between people who live downtown and others who want to do commercial infill and a huge amount of those complaints are completely mute, and for good reason. The whole point of an urban neighborhood is to have a mix of uses and not isolated residential like you have in the 'burbs.
Bookmarks