Expanded and more broadly applied. The proposed ordinance would create a path to legalize what appears to be an illegal accessory kitchen located at 2601 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
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 twofoot 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 dont agree with that argument because when you look at market octavia, the ado
Present time uop [speaker not understood] dental school is renovating a building that already has these broad plates on 5th street near mission. And i was a graduate of the earlier facility and i can speak to the difficulty that facility has in its present location because of the narrowness. So, its not just tech, but other uses. Its important that we get broad floor plates. However, this has to be correct and i think the things theyve done in terms of tower separation, bulk, are very much in keeping with the code. As was pointed out by mr. Guy, because of the tdr sold by 6 20, 63 1 howard, there never will be another tower that they have to separate themselves from because even if that building were to be destroyed in a fire or some other manner, it could never be built to more of a height than its at now because theyve already sold their tdrs. And then the bulk, there are a number of ways that you can grant exceptions and major variations in the skin of the building, and theyre certa
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 whats best for our community. Now, i understand the planning staff is recommending support of this legislation and also allowing potentially offsite 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, thats a pretty significant step and its 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 or not. Im open to pa
2601 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 be to prevent the s