Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1981-08-25 MINUTES PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING August 25, 1981 ck PRESENT: Chairman S. Cummings, P, Holmes, M. Sampson, E. Nichols, R. Slather ALSO: Appellants, appellants' representatives, other interested persons, H. M. Van Cort, press 1. S. Cummings called the meeting to order at 7:50 PM. 2. Communication from Council : Letter from Mayor Bordoni to S. Cummings appointing her as Chairman of the Planning & Development Board. (read by E. Nichols) J1 Letter from Mayor Bordoni to R. Snlather appointing him to membership on the Planning & Development Board. (read by E. Nichols) 3. Election of Vice-Chairman: Nomination of Martin Sampson,by E. Nichols, second by P. Holmes, to serve as Vice-Chairman of the Board. Motion PASSED, 4-0. 4. Public Hearings: Motion to open public hearing by Sampson, second by Holmes, PASSED 4-0. Appeal for public comment-none received Motion to close public hearing by M. Sampson, second by Slather, PASSED 4-0. Board action 1) Sampson moved, second by Holmes, to approve subdivision at 614-618 W. Clinton Street, passed 4-0. 2) Van Cort described INHS` desire to redraw the rear lot lines of the two lots. Discussion of diagonal property lines-feasibility. Sampson moved, Nichols second,for approval of transfer.of land from. one parcel to another by INHS, subject to survey and Jinal line drawn by INHS with due consideration, PASSED 4-0. 5. APproval of July 1981 minutes: Page 4 - Hovanec Case - change Robert Winn to Robert Wood. Addition to minutes requested by S. Cummings - discussion of possible north side housing density study. Holmes moved, second by Sampson, to approve as corrected - PASSED 4-0. 2 6. Chairperson's Report: Several concerns: efficiency, effectiveness of Board, concern for neighborhood, burden of proof on applicant for variance, not on neighbor- hood; being made aware of planning programs and conferences; better hand- out material for new members; effective committee structure; accessibility of Board to public; better notification process of adjacent property owners - Planning Department look into; follow-up on cases ruled upon by BZA-3; 6, 12-month report on selected cases. 7. iCommittee Report: None 8. Old Business: Request to follow-up on owner-occupancy and density in north side. 9. New Business: E. Nichols reported on request by D. Banfield on behalf of Over-Thirty Softball League to BPW to use 10 acres in Southwest Park. League will make improvements to fields. However, SW Park is only large undeveloped parcel left in city, and thus has some potential for industrial development. Planning staff will continue to research idea with state recreation officials. Alienation of land requires approval by State Legislature. Van Cort pointed out that recreational use of property may irrevocably tie use of that land to recreational use. Decision to allow recreational use should not be made in haste without knowing all consequences. Question raised by Nichols as to whether park land here has been pledged in exchange for development of other land. Question raised as to whether other land can be made available. Appears that there are no other City-owned sites available now. Land may be available in several years in northern Cass Park, depending upon dredging project in Flood Control Channel . Consensus of Board that it needs more information about the property, the request, the legal and land use implications, the possibility of alternative sites. Slather so moves to request additional information from staff, second by Holmes, PASS[---b 44. 10. ZONING APPEALS CASES: APPEAL 1385: Appeal of HOVANEC BUILDERS for Use Variance under Sect. 30.25, Col . 2 (permitted uses) to permit use of the property at 202-204 E. Falls Street and the parcel behind 210, 214, 218, 220, and 222 E. Falls Street, for a contractor's office, parking, and equipment and materials storage. The parcel at 202-204 E. Falls Street is located in a B-2a (business) district in which a business office but not a contractor's shop is permitted; the other parcel is located in an R-2b (residential ) district, in which commercial uses are not permitted. 3 Michael and Jim Hovanec were present on behalf of this appeal . Planning issues: Whether appropriate and compatible with adjacent residential properties; Whether adjacent properties will deteriorate in value. Economic benefit to subject property. Whether adjacent properties will become less desirable leading to conversion to non-residential uses. Traffic; probably increase of non-residential traffic. Possible reduction in residential amenity, Visual impact of parking and storage areas. Environmental impact (noise, dust, debris) , Potential for- destabilization of neighborhood through- disinvestment and conversion of residential properties. Staff recommendation: DENIAL for following reasons: 1 Reduction of neighborhood quality through introduction of an inappropriate nonconforming use into a residential area, with associated negative effects, 2 r. Eventual reduction in property values and destabilization of neighborhood, leading to loss of residential units through conversion to nonresidential uses. Nei.ghborhood/Public Comment: Janet Riez, 222 E. Falls Street - Primarily concerned with traffic on a street so close to public schools. There is currently a lot of school related traffic on the street, particularly children riding bicycles to school , Trucks from the new business will increase the possibility of accidents. Also concerned about noise from trucks and business, Carolyn Peterson, 110 Dey Street, President of Fall Creek Neighborhood Association Read a resolution from the Association stating a preference for residential uses on all three parcels associated with the former P & C and adjacent gas station with no more than 16 family-occupied units. Also indicated that there was a lot of interest in creating housing for the elderly on these sites. Concerned with additional traffic and its effect on children's safety, Also noted that some members of the Association were in favor of the proposal . Esther O'Neill , E. Falls Street R Expressed concern with traffic in the neighbor- hood and an increase in truck traffic due to business. David Banfi.eld, City Alderman from ward in concern -- A letter was: read from Mr. Banfield by Susan Cummings stating his concerns about the residential nature of the neighborhood being infringed upon by an inappropriate business. Stated that there are other locations- where this business is appropriate. Expressed concern that the lighted bench proposed would be a trouble-- -. some feature for neighbors, 4 Appellant Comment; Michael and Joe Hovanec i,:ndicated .that. they had expected assistance from:the Planning Board staff in finding alternativesites: but had :recei°ved none, Indicated their willingness to :sell _the lot behind the other houses; Reemphasized points made in previous meeting: already located in the neighborhood with. no significant impact now; their business would have less traffic than other uses . currently allowed by zoning ordinancep wi;lling. to redesign the 1fghted park. bench_ area. .. . ... :.. , P & D R, Sl ather questt.one.d interest in elderly housing and discovered that only preliminary dis- cussions had taken place and no proposal made as.of date, Motion by Sampson to deny- variance, second b. Nichols_ PASSED-4-0. APPEAL. 1387 Appeal of WSKG-MV FM for Special Permit under Sect. 30.,26.-C4 Cs:peci:al permit for`radio.'tower) to permit addit%on of television`and FM translators; to :the existing radio tower at 815'S Aurora Stt ;n an R-36 district i:n .wh_ich. such to may, be permitted under special permit. The P & D Board heard this case inJuly, but since it was not properly advertised, it will be reheard, Robert Owens and Sibson, WSKG TV, were present on`behalf of this, appeal . Plannih . i'tWes-. Vis,ual impact-negl.igi;ble., Service would improve avail a,bi.l i;ty;of cultural and educational broadcast media to general public. Staff. R6d6Mendati0n; APPROVAL Neighborhood/Pub-lit Comment; Andrew Diamond, South. Hill resident, is in favor`of-request because it will improve his: reception. Allan. BoardmanTsatd he is.not opposed to request,. but would like the impact of`a.ntennae on`property- values to be. investigated m P &' D Board:Recommendati.on; Nichols moved` second by-.Holmes, to recommend Rprova of`re.quest for`speci:al permit- PASSED 4-.0, ather movedto recommend to `BZA to require landscaping atbase of`antenna if legally. po�sible.:and if it doesn't discourage the project-no second, 'APPEAL.1388; Appeal of B. PHILIP.for Use Variance under Sect. 30,25, Col . 2 rmi (pette.d us,es:)_ and Area Variance under.Sect. 30,:25, Cols. 6,7, 10�, .il, '12, .13 and 14Clot size, width_, .coverage, and front, side and rear yard setbacksl to permit conversion of an existing garage at the rear of.'611 Utica 'St, to a third dwelling unit, The. property is in an R-.2h_ district-in whish: only one or two-family dwellings are permitted, As proposed, :the property- would have deficient area and wi:dth, :permitted coverage is already exceeded; and setbacks for front, side and :rear yards.. would not bemets 5 Mrs. B. Philip, Joe Ph.ili.p, and Marvin Daddi:ns., attorney, appeared on behalf of this appeal . Planning issues: Increased density-in :neighborhoodp .� Increased traffic. Increased noise. May improve appearance of building and area,. Staff; Recommendat%on; DENIAL, because of possible i:ncreas,e in density and impact upon neighborhood particularly i_f sold or rented to another individual . Neighborhood/p.ub.lic comment; Hollis Stillwell , 617 Utica Street, spoke in favor of the request, Susan Cummings; read letter from Mary Janet Scheele of 613 Utica Street, who was in favor;of the request. Appellant C6.Went; Building originally designed as a stable and ,is not usable as a garage. Joe (Mrs, Philip"s son) will occupy.the. unit. Only one bedroom planned Pointed out that several other variances had- been granted for apartments: i:n the immediate vicinity, Hardsh.i.p on the part of Mrs. Phil Tp exists, P & D Board :Recommendati:on; Sampson moved, Nichols: second, to recommend Approval of request failed, 3-2, rather moved, Holmes second, to recommend Denial of reques� -­ PASSED -34, APPEAL 1389; Appeal of M. and V. ALBANESE for Area -Variance under Sect. 30.25 Col. 13' (_si;de yard) to permit conversion of the one-farm l y dwelling at 428 S. Ceneva'St,,_ to a two-family dwelling, The property, in an .RR2b. di;stri:ct in wh-i.ch. two-family dwellings are permitted, is. deficient in one side yard setback., Mark Albanese appeared on behalf of this request. Planning issues: Conversion of single family to 2-unit house. Staff Recommendation: Based on information presented at meeting, APPROVAL. Neighborhood/public comment: None �o P & D Recommendation: Holmes moved, SAlather second, to recommend Approval of request. PASSED, 4-0. APPEAL1139.O; Appeal of IRV LEWIS, INC. for Use Variance under Sect. 30.25, Col .2 (,permitted uses) and Area Variance under Sect, 30,25, Col.10 (lot coverage) , to permit use of 303 W. Lincoln St. for an office equipment sales and servicing business. The property is in an R-2b district where such businesses are not permitted, and permitted lot coverage would be exceeded. The property has 6 been used until recently for light man.ufacturi,ng, and has .''grandfathe.r`' rights for such use, but the proposed new.us�e would not fall under the- same category, Stu Lewis appeared on behalf of this :request Planning issues; Unknown impact on traffi;c.volume, Unknown visual impact Existing b.ufldi.ng, not suitable for residential purposes, Staff recommendation; APPROVAL Neighborhood/publ it' comment; None P & D Recommendation; Sampson moved, Ni.ch.ols second, to recommend Approval , PASSED 3-J. SSI ather in di:s ent, APPEAL 1391; Appeal of TIOGA AND BUFFALO BUILDING CORP. for Area Variance under Sect, $0,25, Cols, 11 and 14 Crequi.red minimum setbacks:.for' front and rear yards-) to permit construction ,of a five-story office bui l ding at 200. E. B.uffalo'St, The property is- i_n a B-1b district, and if the building i:s constructed, will be deficient in required front and rear:setbacks:, A similar variance, granted by the Board -i:n October, 'expired when a building permit was not obtained with-in a year. Dennis Meek., of O'Brien and Taube, appeared on behalf of this request. Planning issues; Strengthening economic vi:ab.i.l i:ty and i-nage of CBD. Increased traffic in downtown area Visual impact— very-.good, Public space = arcade area provided.. Staff Recommendation; APPROVAL Neighborhood_ comment; None . -- cU P & D Recommendation; Slather moved, second by Nichols, to recommend approval PASSED, 4-0, APPEAL 1392; Appeal of J, RANCICH and HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES AND ESSENTIAL SERVICES (-H.O.M;E.S..) for Area Variances under Sect. 30825, Cols, 4 and iJ (off-street parking an6 front yard setback) and Sect. 30026 (Special Conditions. for Group Care Residences) to permit occupancy of'311 W® Buffalo St. by a Group Care Res.i:dence for six residents, The property, in -an R-26 district in wh_i.ch_ a group residence is permitted under special conditions, is deficient in front yard setback. and off-,street parking, and does. not meet the special conditions for lot width and side yard setbacks, Ron Macke appeared on behalf of .thi♦s request, Planning issues: Neighborhood impact-minimal , Existing -building, use and capacity., Only change i,s: administrative system to allow more funding, 7 Staff recommendation: APPROVAL Neighborhood comment: None P & D Recommendation: Sampson moved, Nichols second, to recommend Approval , contingent upon availability of at least 3 parking spaces, PASSED 4-0. APPEAL 1393: Appeal of C. J. ANAGNOST for Area Variance under Sect. 30.25, Col . 6 (lot area) to permit occupancy of the single-family house at 108 College Ave. by five unrelated individuals. Such occupancy would constitute a change in use to a multiple dwelling, permitted in the R-3b district in which the property is located, but the property is deficient in lot size for multiple dwelling. Chris Anagnost appeared on behalf of this request. Planning issues: Neighborhood impact-minimal . Addition to parking problem in Collegetown, Only 25 square feet (.62%) short of requirement. Increase in occupancy and density. Staff recommendation: APPROVAL, due to very small deficiency. Neighborhood Comment: None P & D Recommendation: Nichols moved, second by Sampson, to recommend Approval , PASSED, 4--0. APPEAL 1394: Appeal of F. and J. HENRY for Area.Variance under Sect. 30.49 (extension or enlargement of a non-conforming building) and Sect. 30,25, Cols 10, 11, 12, 13 and 15 (lot coverage, and front, side, and rear yard setbacks) to permit construction of a carport covering most of the rear yard at 202 W. Yates St. The property is in an R--2b district, the permitted lot coverage is exceeded, and the property is deficient in front, side and rear yards. Janet Henry appeared on behalf of this request. Planning issues: Potential impact on neighbors due to extensive lot coverage. �~ Sense of encroachment may result. Staff recommendation; APPROVAL, based on explanation of project. Neigh-borhood comment; Kathy Simpson, neighbor, spoke in favor of request, R. L. Anderson, neighbor, spoke in favor of request. P & D Recommendation: Nichols moved, second by Holmes, to recommend Approval PASSED, 4-0., APPEAL 1395: Appeal of C, LIN for Area Variance under Sect. 30,25, Cols, 4 and 6 (off-street parking and lot size) to permit occupancy of .the single-family house at 126 Coll020'Ave, by six or seven unrelated i'ndi:viduals, Such. occupancy d 8 would constitute a change in use to a multiple dwelling, permitted in the R-3b district in which the property is located, but the property is deficient in off-street parking and lot size. Planning issues: Increased density. Shortage of parking. Staff Recommendation: APPROVAL, with condition that no more than five unrelated individuals be permitted to occupy the structure. Neighborhood comment: Mrs. Elm Monday, neighbor, spoke in opposition to the request because of impact on surrounding neighborhood of increased density and lack of adequate parking. Mr. Shane Coleen, neighbor, spoke in opposition to the request because of its impact on the already bad parking situation on Blair Street. Also concerned about continued conversion of single- family houses to multi-family units. P & D Recommendation: Discussion as to appropriate ways to deal with parking problems. 'lather moved, Sampson second, to recommend approval , subject to conditions that no more than 5 occupants be allowed in the house, and that 1 additional off-street parking space must be secured with a long-term commitment within 30 days. PASSED, 3-1 (Ethel Nichols in dissent) . 1.1. Adjournment.