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