HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1979-02-27 MINUTES:
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
February 27, 1070
PRESENT: Stuart Stein, Richard Moran, Raymond Bordoni,
Susan Cummings
ALSO: Aristotle Papayanakos, Frank Slattery, Jon Meigs,
Dirk Galbraith, Ethel Nichols, Tom Hoard, James Yarnell
Vicky Romanoff, Sarah Hector, Raymond DiPasquale,
Ralph Barnard, Don Slattery, Dick Boronkay, Elva Holman
Seymour Turk
1; The meeting was called to order at 7:45 p.m.
2. As the minutes were late in being distributed to the members of the
Board, approval of the minutes will be taken up at the next Board
meeting.
3. Will-be taken up later in the meeting-,
4. Mr. Stein stated that due to the increasing heavy agenda that a stronger
committee structure would be set up. An informal meeting to discuss staff
matters may also be appropriate. There will be six committees.
1. Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee
2. Codes and Ordinances Committee
3. Economic Development Committee
4. Social and Cultural Development Committee
5. Urban Design and Preservation Committee
6. General Plan Committee
There will be no executive committee as matters of importance should be
discussed at a meeting of the whole.
5. APPEAL.1250 Appeal for Use Variance under Section 30.25, Col . 2
(permitted uses) to permit rental of the upper unit of a two-family
dwelling to four unrelated persons.,, and an Area Variance under Section
30.25, Columns 12, 13, and 14 (minimum required side yards and rear
yard) to permit construction of an exterior stairway to serve as a second
means of egress from the third floor. The property is located at 105
College Avenue, in an R-2b district, in which no more than three unrelated
persons may occupy a dwelling unit, and the property is deficient in both
side yards and rear yard.
Appellant, Frank Slattery, stated that because the neighborhood is influenced
by college students as residents, it is difficult to rent his apartments to
families. The appeal requests a variance to allow one more person to reside
in the structure than is permitted in the R-2b zone. Parking is available to
meet City requirements.
Mr. Hoard informed the Board that an error was made in the application. The
property is deficient in only one side yard,.
PAGE2
Appellant said that the third floor space, which. was. finished for occupancy
before h-e bought the House, is being used even though'he, as the landlord,
has- requested tenants not to use the space since it does not have a~fire.
exit. He would like to see the building .safe for those who are living
there,..anl_ will install a fire escape if he can increase occupancy to make
the expense pay for itself.,
Mr.. McIgs stated. that staff is split in its recommendation. if the. variance
was- granted, It would encourage a lot of others to. do the'same with'-.:potential.
effects of increasing parking and otherproblems.
Appellant felt that there would be no harm :to neighborhood character in
allowing the variance as his property is next to a. zone which permits a
heavier density.
Mr. Stein asked Mr. Hoard if changing the zoning ordinance would be better
than granting a variance. Mr. Hoard stated. th.at changing the ordinances
would permit more density.: in his opinion, granting the variance would be
better. .
Ms. Cummings MOVED to recommend denial of the variance. Mr. Bordoni
seconded,: For: 2• Against: 1 (Moran); Abstention: 1 (Stein)
Mr. Moran stated that if the zoning were changed for any particular property
it would be considered spot zoning. Safety .is the major determining factor
for this- zoning variance. One more person living in the home would not
create much of a problem. Most of the other houses in the area are student
housing.. Mr. Stein stated. that he would like to change his vote.. He is
basically against recommending denial, and wants the vote to clearly indicate
this'rBOa.rd"s, divided opinion., The revised vote thus stands: For: 2,
Against: 2.
APPEAL 1251: Appeal for an Interpretation under section 30,51
(restoration of a building after damage) and/'or an Area Variance
under Section 30,25, Columns 4, 5, 10,' 12, 13 and 14 (required
off-street parking and off-street loading, maximum permitted lot
coverage, minimum required side yards and rear yard) to permit
construction of a new building which would house a discotheque and
three stores at 406-408-410 College Avenue, The proposed building
would result in deficiencies in required off-street loading, sideand
rear yards, and maximum permitted lot coverage would be exceeded,
The site, located in a B-2 district, is, presently occupied by a
fire-damaged building, and is deficient to some degree in all
of the categories listed above, A previous appeal was denied by the
Board in November, 1978; the new proposal differs in that one
use (a movie theater) has been deleted, .
Mr, Galbraith, attorney for appellant, explained that the movie theaterhad
been deleted from the original proposal The discotheque would now, in
fact, be located on the College Avenue level with three shops located
on the .second floor.
Mr'. Papayanakos, adjacent property owner, felt the property should be torn
PAGE 3
down, He went on to say that a disco will have an adverse affect on the
neighborhood,
Mr, Galbraith stated that the intended use (disco) was apparently a
permitted use by zoning regulations,
Mr. Yarnell, representing Cornell, which owns the property behind the
appellant"s, expressed his concern of the proposed construction to the
property liner as there would be a question of exiting on the west side
and further, parking would be a problem as the closest available parking
would be in the lot on the west side which is owned by Cornell and used
primarily for the tenants of Sheldon Court,
.Mr, Galbraith stated that parking spaces required, by his calculation, would
be approximately 12 (for the disco),:, He further explained that the
establishment would attract a lot of walk-in traffic, The proposed
construction now calls for a 271//, rigYit�, of,,,way on the back side for exiting.
Mrs Yarnell felt that this would not be enough room for safety, Mr, Meigs
said the parking requirement would be somewhat higher than Mr, Galbraith
estimated, and that parking for the shops would add to it,
Staff recommendation is to defer until the related and superior question
of zoning for ,the.area.is resolved, That matter, although not indicated
on the agenda, will be discussed later in the meeting,
Mrj Stein stated that the issue of right-ofTway is not clear to everyone.
at this time and it was not settled at the last meeting when it was brought
to the Planning Board, Mr, Bordoni.said that the Board's time should not
be wasted on an appeal in which questions have not been answered, before it
is brought to the Board,
Mr, Hoard interjected that no butldtng pexmit would be issued until the
exiting requirement is satisfied. This is an issue. which the Planning Board
need not concern itself with,
Ms. Cummings was concerned about the facade design of the. building, Mr,
Ga;lbr4ith .stated it would be tasteful and in keeping with the surrounding
buildings, No drawings are currently avai.la.ble,.
Mr, Meigs asked if there is a loading area; Mr`, Galbraith stated that
Mr, Avramis has rented two parking spaces from Gox,hell (Mr, Yarnell agreed)
directly .in back of the building for this prupose'
Mr, BOrdoni MOVED to recommend approvalfor the. lack of a second the
emotion died,
Mr. ,Moran MOVED to recommend that the appeal, be deferred until consideration
of the Planning & :Development Departmentk.s, propoaal ,for zpning changes has
t�.
been accomplished, Ms, Cummings seconded' For T* 3' Against -. 1a
Page 4
Mr. Stein said that the. ,Special Order of Business to be taken up at
this time was a joint meeting of the Planning and Development Board and
the Codes and Ordinance Committee of Common Council.
Council member, Ethel Nichols called the joint meeting to order to discuss
proposed zoning changes. Common Council recently passed a resolution
requesting staff to consider the problems which have arisen in the 300 block
of Tioga Street and the Collegetown area and bring suggestions back to Common
Council by March 1, 1979, The purpose of this meeting is to review the
recommendations made by staff,
Mr. Stein went on to explain that therearefour basic areas of changer
Parking requirements, physical requirements related to development of the
property in the rezoning area, map changes, and questions of design and
design review.
In summary, recommendations for the B1 and B2 zones establish two new
sub--zones, Blc-b and B2-b, which will in turn require that the remainder of the
present Bl and B2 zones be renamed B1-a and B2-a. This will follow the
pattern established with the previous revision of the ordinance where each
residential zone was split in two parts, R1-a, R1-b, etc.
The two new zones stand out because of special problems and special interests
which have caused this action to be taken where some area requirements
will be changed and a Design Review Board will be established to help guide
the physical improvements,
The Design Review Board will be an advisory board pertaining only to the
areas in the proposed zoning changes, off-street parking requirements
recommended in the two new zones are to be dropped entirely. Parking
requiremetns are the principal issue, Everyone concerned is aware that
an increase in parking demand will occur as a result of this action and that
in the future some \'City action may have to be taken to increase the supply
of parking.
Mr, Meigs pointed out on a map the areas which would be affected by the
change
Mr, Stein said that the Design Review Board technique has been used in a
lot of other cities and should not be seen as new and innovative and breaking
new frontiers, Because of the character and location of the area to be rezoned,
and the potential impacts of changes, the design review process requires
anyone in the rezoned area who wishes to make changes or alterations to their
building to make plans public. It does not require those concerned to do
anything that is suggested to them by the review board, but experience in
other cities indicates that many owners and developers find the review helpful,
and voluntarily accept the design advice offered,
Mr. Meigs explained all the specific details of the proposed changes, In the
"a" subzones, public parking within 500' of a property would be applicable to
the property's requirement for parking for customer-client short-term uses,
Parking for employees, managerial staff, etc. still have to be provided by
Page 5
the business or property owner.
Council member, Elva Holman stated that as she read it, according to how
the proposed draft is written, businesses would have to file a written
claim on parking spaces in order to provide the required ,parking spaces
for their firm, if this is the case, a large firm could come in and claim all
the parking spaces available. She also felt that the possibility might
exist for rental of public spaces to satisfy the employee/manager requirement,
thus preventing their use by shoppers and others doing business downtown,
Mr. Stein stated that off street parking would not be required in the new
"b" subzones,
The loading zone for businesses located in the area has been revised so
that a tractor tralor space would not be required for a small office.
Ms, Nichols stated that the proposed changes needed to be reviewed by the
committee, as most of the members had not had sufficient time to review
them.
Mr. Stein said that a recommendation should come from the ,Planning Board
before the Codes and Ordinance Committee can act and that public hearing
will have to be held as well as a review by County Planning,
Planning Board members felt that the Design Review Board might cause a
lot of delay in the rezoning process. It was suggested that the zoning
changes be passed along for recommendation to the Codes and Ordinance
Committee and that the Design Review Board be considered as a separate
item and set up afterward,
Ms. Nichols pointed out that if the historic district would overlap into
the newly zoned areas, the TLPC would review proposed changes to existing
buildings, rather than the proposed Design Review Board, while the review
board would have primary responsibility for new buildings.
Mr. Boronkay stated that he would like to see the two items (design review
and zoning changes) treated separately,
Mr. Moran MOVED to endorse the proposed zoning changes in principle for
the betterment of the downtown area. Mr, Bordoni SECONDED. Motion carried,
Ms. Nichols thanked the staff for all the work that went into the proposed
zoning changes
Mr, Stein referred the proposed zoning changes to the Codes and Ordinance .
Committee and referred design review to the Urban Design and Preservation
Committee.
The Codes and Ordinance Committee of Common Council then adjourned its
meeting.
Page 6 -
6. Coinit:unicati'ons r ;. none
7. Committee Report _: none
s
8. Old Business
Mr. Meigs reported that five of the six alternatives for'':the'`new Route 96
which-Council recommended last fall for design study are acceptable to DOT.
DOT said they would be willing to design all five alternatives for presentation
at.a .design public hearing later in the year, at which time the -City could
. approve .one, or finally reject all. Council was requested to"- ndicate
whether this was acceptable to them. The Design Review Committee will
;:present theirrecommendations to Common Council in March,
Bordoni asked to what degree DOT will design the alternatives,
*Ir '.Meigs explained 'that ;the plans would indicate the detailed layout of
the.proposed..route showing_ the`property which will be affected by it.
Mr Meigs stated that, Mr. Lower had a zoning request for property on
Floral Avenue in which he wanted to build a storage building which was
referred to staff for resolution with Mr. Lower.
Mr. Meigs went on to say that the staff had met with Mr. Lower, as requested
by. the•.�Board; to work—out a site plan for his proposed storage,building on
Floral Avenue, for which he has to obtain a variance. ' Mr, Lower was satisfied
With the plan, and the Board informally indicated its approval,
Mr.. Stein pointed out that this is the second case recently in which the
. staff resolved a problem for the Board.
Mr. Meigs informed the Board that a meeting is scheduled for March-6,:-.
at 8.30 a.m.. for the° benefit°..of the owners and. tenants of North Aurora
Street, East State Street and Tioga Street, Phase II of the Peripheral
Streets Project. Anyone else who is interested is welcome`"ad attend,
The Meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m,