 |
|||||||||
| FOR THE RECORD | |
| MX Zoning
January 30, 2006 The Honorable Richard E. Israel Re: Residential Parking in the MX Zone Dear Alderman Israel: Thank you for your letter of January 21, 2006, concerning whether residents of the MX zoning district are eligible for residential parking permits. Our current City Code concerning the MX zoning district does not make any specific mention of residential parking. Only one of many drafts of recent legislation (O-11-05) concerning the MX district contained a provision relating to residential parking. This provision, which was not included in the final legislation adopted by the City Council, read as follows: Notwithstanding the provisions of this chapter, no residential use in the MX Mixed Use zoning district shall be permitted to participate in any residential parking district established pursuant to this chapter. Thus, the City Code concerning the MX zoning district still does not make any mention of residential parking districts. As your letter points out, only two special residential parking districts, those being 3 and 4, overlap with the MX zoning district. Those overlaps are only partial. That is, only some portions of the MX district are in either Special Residential Parking District 3 or 4. However, most of the properties in the MX district are not within any residential parking district. The attached listing identifies the streets that touch or pass through the MX zoning district, and then classifies those streets into two categories: those in a special parking district, and those not Please note the City Code at Section 12.32.170 (B) states that A city resident living on a corner adjacent to a street located in residential parking district No. 3, but whose street address is not included in the residential parking district shall have the option of purchasing a residential parking permit. No such provision exists for District 4. I hope this information has been helpful to you. Please feel free to call me with any other questions. Sincerely, Shaèm C. Spencer STREETS THAT TOUCH OR PASS THROUGH MX DISTRICT MX STREETS IN A RESIDENTIAL PARKING DISTRICT (District Number)
MX STREETS NOT IN A RESIDENTIAL PARKING DISTRICT
March 10, 2005 Mr. Jon Arason, Director Dear Jon: Thank you for attending yesterday evening’s meeting of the Murray Hill Residents Association. Your explanation of the proposed revision of the MX Zone ordinance was, as usual, very informative. I am writing to follow up on my question and your response on the need to incorporate into the law a “good neighbor” requirement for alcoholic beverage licensees. Because of the proximity of residences and licensed premises, there is, understandably, broad opposition among the residents to any 2 AM alcoholic beverage licenses in the MX zone. This is a sentiment which I share. However, if such licenses are to be permitted, it is imperative that the "good neighbor" requirement in the regulations of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board be incorporated into the law. This would give this requirement a degree of permanence and provide a basis in the law for denial of the renewal of a license. The annual renewal of such licenses is an excellent way of insuring the accountability of the licensee for observing the law, including, I hope, the “good neighbor” requirement. Your positive response to my question about whether the City Administration would favor incorporating the “good neighbor” requirement into the law was most welcome. So that there is no misunderstanding of what I have referred to as the “good neighbor” requirement, the text of this requirement in the Board’s regulations is, as follows:
Ideally, this requirement should be incorporated into city’s ordinances for all alcoholic beverage licensees. However, I defer to the City Attorney as to whether there is a one subject limitation in enactment of the city’s ordinances and whether a “good neighbor” requirement for all licensees could be enacted as a provision of the proposed ordinance revising the MX zone. However, as a start, the requirement could surely be added to the provision on alcoholic beverage licenses in the MX zone legislation. Sincerely, ::TOP:: |
 |