Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1983-02-22 Minutes Manning & Development Board February 22, 1983 PRESENT: Chair P. Rogers, Vice-Chair S.Cummings; B. Romanowski , B.Gerkin, R. Holdsworth, R. Moran ALSO: J. Meigs, Press, Appellants, Appellants' representatives, Other interested parties. 1 . Call to order: Chairman Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. 2. Approval of minutes: Chairman Rogers deferred the approval of the January minutes until the March meeting. 3. ' Public"Hearing=Subdivision: Ms. Cummings moved and Mr. Gerkin seconded to open the hearing to -consider for FINAL APPROVAL, the application on behalf of the U-Fair Realty Corporation, of a subdivision of land approx- imately 3 acres from the property known as 500 S. Meadow St. known as "U-Fair" of the "Fairgrounds" site for sale and development. Motion was carried unanimously, 4-0. No public comment in opposition to this proposed subdivision appeared. FINAL APPROVAL: The proposed parcel is located in B-5 and Ifl zoning- dis- tricts of the City, and partially within the 100 year flood hazard area defined by the U.S. Dept. of HUD. Mr. Maguire gave a brief presentation of the site plan. (,See November & December minutes) A survey, property description, three--part Environmental Statement, and other necessary doc- uments have been submitted to the Planning Board, according to Mr. Maguire. Additionally, Mr. Maguire mentioned that thi7s area had been pre-loaded with soil in 1967, and over a ten year period, the soil had settled, so that there would not be much of a problem with settling in the future. Peter Weiss, the architect for the building, described the building which is to house the Maguire-Ford car dealership, as being a pre-engineered metal building, composed of 12-13,000 sq.ft. Mr. Weiss also discussed plans for landscaping the perimeter with locust and other plant materials, but on a low level, so not to obscure the scenery of the area. There were some questions raised by Board members as to the main entry location, and whether there were any catch basins in the proposed develop- ment. Mr. Weiss indicated the main entry/exit locations, and noted that storm sewers and some catch basins were scheduled for the development. Motion by Ms. Cummings, and seconded by Mr. Gerkin, to grant FINAL APPROVAL of said subdivision, contingent on completion of all environmental review required, and any subsequent proceedings Motion carried unanimously,4-0. 4. Privilege of the floor: Mr. Downing, on behalf of the Ramada Inn, addressed the Board, with his proposed request for re-zoning of the area, so that the Ramada could build a 50 x 60 foot tower in front of the Inn. This eight-storey tower would be only 12 feet higher than McGraw House. Mr. Downing noted that exceptions in zoning had been made in prior years, but that no exceptions could be made under present laws. Mr. Downing plans to Planning & Development Board Minutes -• February 22, 1983 ask the Common Council for re-zoning of that property, so that this tower can be built. Jon Meigs noted that the two main drawbacks with this construction were: 1 ) that the excessive height of the tower was not permitted under the present ordinance, and 2) that the development intensity requires a substantial number of parking spaces per hotel room, and that there would be a 50% parking deficiency with this proposed building. Chairman Rogers asked that this item be referred to the Codes and Administration Committee for review. A motion was made, and approved unanimously, 4-0, that this request be referred to this committee. The Board also requested a report from the staff on alternatives and possibilites to be given at the next meeting. Additionally, the staff will meet with members of the Codes and Administration Committee, and any other interested parties concerning the Ramada Inn's rezoning request. 4. Communications; Chairman Rogers distributed to the Board members, copies of communications he had received. No discussion followed. 5. Chairman's report: Scheduled at this meeting were to be 1983 Committee assignments. However, Jon Meigs distributed copies of a memo proposing the reorganization of Planning and Development Committees. The memo was addressed to Chairman Rogers, Mr. Meigs pointed out that he and Mr. Van Cort felt that this reorganization could reduce the workload on individual members, and result in more active, and productive committees. Four committees were proposed; including a new Human & Cultural Resources committee, which would address the effects of propos- ed school closings and other planning issues, would have on people. There was some discussion by the Board members as to fn which-committees certain concerns would be included such as recreation, and preservation. Chairman Rogers requested that the staff expand on the subjects that- fall within each new committee category, for the next meeting. Mr. . Moran requested that the Board be provided with the existing set-up of committees, with their present assignments, i .e. West-End, College- town, etc. for comparison, and to get a general idea. No action was taken at this time, on this matter. 6. Committee reports: None 7. Director's .report: None 8. Staff reports: None 9. ZONING APPEALS REVIEW: See attached 10. Old Business: None 11 . New Business: None 1.2. Miscellaneous: None 13. Adjournment: Motion was made and the meeting was adjourned at 9:45 pm. Planning & Development Board ZONING APPEALS February 22, 1983 APPEAL 1480: Appeal of Collegetown' Motor Lodge (essentially the same as #1475, heard by Planning & Development in December 1982 and denied by BZA earlier this month). Art Rosten, President of Collegetown Motor Lodge, appeared on behalf of this appeal . Appellant Comment: Mr. Rosten provided the Board with a larger map, which showed greater detail , for his presentation. In addition, the proposed building has been scaled down several hundred feet, so that it would not exceed 1000 square feet. This area would only require 4 parking spaces. Public Comment: Attorney Pichel , representing the owners of the property at 306 College Avenue, came forward in opposition. Mr. Pichel 's client opposes the closeness of this building proposal to their property line. The owners were not in attendance at prior Board meetings, when this appeal was being heard. Board Comment: The Board discussed the fact that there is now new evidence before them, which may make this appeal a different case. Ms. Cummings noted that a new vote should be taken. Chairman Rogers noted that this Board had already addressed this appeal, approved it, and that this new appeal had no negative areas. However, Chairman Rogers added that the Zoning Board would probably be interested in this protest. Motion: Chairman Rogers called for a vote on APPROVAL of the appeal . There was no motion made. ) CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0. APPEAL 1481: W. Zikakis for Area Variances to permit construction of self-service storage facilities at 416 Elmira Rd. , in a B,5 zone, with non--conforming front and side yards. The proposed-development, for which a Use Variance =was granted last July, would function better with -more circulation space between buildings than possible with the required setbacks, Appellant Comment: No one appeared. Board Comment: Ms. Cummings made a motion to defer comment on this appeal until further information was provided (adequate drawings and appellant representation); seconded by Mr. Moran. Motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ZONING APPEALS February 22, 1983 2. APPEAL 1482: . C. Fritschler for Area Variance to off-street parking requirements for property at 125-27 N. Quarry St. , in an R-3a zone. Appellant wishes to be relieved of requirement for providing six of the twelve spaces required for this property, on grounds that actual need is unlikely to be greater. Mr. C. Fritschler appeared on behalf of this ,appeal . Appellant Comment: Mr. Fritschler informed the Board that Thomas Hoard, Building Commissioner, had re-calculated the number of parking spaces needed. The number of parking spaces was reduced from 9 to six. Mr. Fritschler is now asking for a relief of 3 of the nine parking spaces requirements. In order for Mr. Fritschler to receive a certificate of compliance, he would either have to rent all nine parking spaces or be awarded a variance. Mr. Fritschler believes he could rent six parking spaces. Board Comment : The Board objected to the fact that once this variance was granted to the present owners, subsequent owners could receive a variance according to the Grandfather Clause. The Board also discussed .the fact that once this type of variance was granted, there would be no controls ; any new tenants could choose not to rent a parking space from the landlord. Also the Board would not`be checking the number of spaces being used for parking, at any...given. time. Public Comment: There were 3 statements from the public concerning their opposition to this appeal. Mr. Reeve Parker appeared in person to the Board. He was opposed to this appeal because it is now difficult for him to park i.n front of his house, and he must rent space in his neighbor's garage. Due to the number of tenants living in the building at 125-27 N. Quarry, the steps in front of Mr. Parker's building were frequently blocked, according to Mr. Parker. Additionally, Mr. Parker presented two statements 's from Mr. Norman Dailey, at 110 N.Quarry st. , and Mrs, Carol.V. Kaske,at 121 N. Quarry, who both voiced their opposition because parking in that neigh- borhood was already very difficult. Motion: Chairman Rogers called for a vote of DENIAL of the appeal ,. A motion was not made. ) CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 54. Summary of BZA Actions on Zoning Appeals, March 83 Appeal 1480: Area Variance to permit construction of small office building on motel property at 312 College Avenue: Denied, 6-0. ' Findings: no showing of practical difficulties in complying with zoning regulations. Appeal 1482: Area Variance to permit continued occupation of all 5 apartments in the apartment house at 125--127 N,Quarry Denied, 6-0. Findings: use would be 9 parking spaces deficient; no evidence of any attempts to provide spaces; appellant was aware of deficiency when he bought the property. 3/24/83