Stay updated with breaking news from Adriana elio. Get real-time updates on events, politics, business, and more. Visit us for reliable news and exclusive interviews.
expanded and more broadly applied. the proposed ordinance would create a path to legalize what appears to be an illegal accessory kitchen located at 260-1/2 noe street, which supports the very small kitchen at cafe floor. and as proposed, this provision would sunset after one year. and during that one year the operator could obtain all necessary permits, go through 312 notification, and then that use when the provision when the ordinance sunsets would become a legal nonconforming use. the department recommends that the commission recommend a modification that it would expand the provision in very specific ways and that would, first, it would remove the sunset provision. secondly, it would require that food processing as an accessory use either be very active and visible to the street front consistent with planning code section 145. or that it be completely screened from view behind an active use so that the active street frontage is maintained. next, we also recommend ....
parcel that are mistakenly zoned as 60-65 x we [speaker not understood] rezoned back to 65 b. and two mistakenly zoned as 50-55 x that should be 50. right, just to reiterate, the convention is to zone the parcel for a base of 10, 30, or 50 feet and offer to five foot height bonus via the requirements of 263.20. that concludes my presentation, but for the public comment section i wanted to add that i included most of the correspondence in your packets. however, since the publication of our packets i received approximately 100 additional letters and e-mails in support of the proposed amendment that would address issues associated with cafe floor. i ve also received one petition and two letters in opposition which i believe were forwarded to you directly, but i have copies of them here today. i m also certainly available for questions. thank you. thank you very much. opening up to public comment, a couple of speaker cards. gary weiss, eric honda, raymond patterson, and a ....
260-1/2 noe street, which supports the very small kitchen at cafe floor. and as proposed, this provision would sunset after one year. and during that one year the operator could obtain all necessary permits, go through 312 notification, and then that use when the provision when the ordinance sunsets would become a legal nonconforming use. the department recommends that the commission recommend a modification that it would expand the provision in very specific ways and that would, first, it would remove the sunset provision. secondly, it would require that food processing as an accessory use either be very active and visible to the street front consistent with planning code section 145. or that it be completely screened from view behind an active use so that the active street frontage is maintained. next, we also recommend that the ordinance explicitly prohibit serving the public in any way within that accessory food prep area. so, that would be the intent there would ....
the [speaker not understood] property formerly the gold stem property, which is seeking to expand the gym and also add apartments above. and, so, the rezoning proposes to go up to 65 feet. i believe that this project should be capped at actually 62 feet. 60 foot height plus a two-foot bonus because the ground floor is 12 feet instead of 10 feet. but planning staff advises that 62 feet is not an actual planning height category. and, so, the legislation at the request of the planning staff says 65 feet that my understanding, my belief and desire is that the actual limit of the project would end up being 62 feet, not 65 feet. and this aspect of the legislation is supported by muncie as well as the castro to market cbd. and i will note that some have indicated that the this rezoning of the height for the fitness property should not happen until there is a specific project pending at the planning department. and i don t agree with that argument because when you look at mar ....
vibrant and strong. community you know better than i do in term of the number of planning code amendments that move through this commission and through the board. i assume probably perhaps more than any other code. we routinely amend our planning code, including for some very specific geographic areas when the planning code is not reflecting the reality of what s best for our community. now, i understand the planning staff is recommending support of this legislation and also allowing potentially off-site kitchens in the city as a whole. while this may be something that should be considered, and i am very happy to work with planning staff to see if there is support for that in the city, that s a pretty significant step and it s a new way of approaching our neighborhood commercial district. it might be a very good idea, but i think that will require quite a bit of dialogue with various neighborhoods to see what people think and to see if people think this is a good idea ....