Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1992-02-25 AMENDED & APPROVED 4-28-92 Planning and Development Board MINUTES February 25, 1992 PRESENT: S. Adams, S. Blumenthal (chair), C. Feuer, G. Hagood, D. Kay, J. Schroeder, Staff: Director H. M. Van Cort, L. Tsang. Also, applicants and members of the public. 1. Meeting was called to order at 7:40 PM. 2. Privilege of the Floor: No one appeared. 3. Public Hearings for Final Subdivision Approval A. 812 E. State St./Ching Po. The public hearing was adjourned at the request of the applicant due to illness. B. 214 N. Plain St./Cannon. This subdivision was requested for a rear yard adjustment, and no major issues were identified. A public hearing was opened by chair. No one appeared to speak, and the hearing was closed. Schroeder, seconded by Feuer, moved for final subdivision approval. Carried unanimously. 4. West Inlet Housing Proposal/Weisburd - Report For the benefit of the Glenside neighborhood association and residents, Chair Blumenthal reported on the meetings that were held by city departments and planning board committees with the applicant regarding' the proposed subdivision and housing project. Van Cort briefly explained the zoning regulations and how an applicant could apply for approval of a cluster subdivision. As lead agency for environmental review of this project, the Board identified the following issues: drainage, road width, sidewalk installation and maintenance, pedestrian circulation, open space management, preservation of locally scarce species (hackberry trees and butterflies), and public controversy. Chair invited the public to comment on the proposed project. Concerns expressed included aesthetics, density, slope, garbage, drainage, effect of salt runoff on hackberry trees, traffic, incompatibility with neighborhood, question of housing affordability. Feuer expressed concern regarding the long-term affordability of homes which were not purchased with public subsidies. He also questioned the city's authority in regulating building size if CD funds were not obtained for the project. Mr. Weisburd responded to comments as follows. Soil tests have been done on the proposed site which show porous sandy loam with no traces of water.. After further calculations have been done, a storm drainage plan will be designed to meet City standards. He mentioned that hackberries are surviving all along Floral Avenue despite the volume of traffic which suggests that traffic and the accompanying salt from cars alone is not damaging them. He also stated the slopes on this property are nowhere near the 30% slope at the new Towerview development nearby, nor will the roads and houses be built on slopes which exceed those already existing on West Hill. The Board members agreed to table further discussion until the project is considered for preliminary subdivision approval. 5. Site Development Plan Reviews A. Fairfield Crossing. Tsang reported that some of the support documents that were required for preliminary site plan approval have been received and are being reviewed by staff. Applicant Rick Cowles asked for conditional final approval and said that he would deliver additional materials to staff by the end of the week. Planning and Development Board -2- Minutes of February 25, 1992 The following resolution was moved by Schroeder, and seconded by Feuer. WHEREAS the Planning and Development Board at its January 28, 1992 meeting has approved the Preliminary Site Development Plan for Fairfield Crossing, 324 Spencer Road, and WHEREAS in its January 29, 1992 Letter of Communication of Decision, the Board has listed the items to be submitted for Final Site Development Plan Approval, and WHEREAS, Chartwell Associates has partially complied with this submittal requirement, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Final Site Development Plan Approval is granted with the condition that the revised final site plan will include all items as listed in the Board's January 29, 1992 Letter of Communication of Decision, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the completeness and adequacy of the revised final site plan and supporting documents are to be determined by the appropriate City staff or officials and the Codes and Administration Committee. Passed 5-0-1 (Kay abstained) . B. City Court/Police Facility. Tsang circulated a draft letter to the client committee with the Codes and Administration committee's recommendations for modifications. Board members felt that at this late stage of design the suggestions would have little effect, but voted to relay the information to the client committee, 4-0-2 (Kay, Hagood abstained) . 6. Old Business A. Site Development Plan Review - revisions. Tsang and Van Cort explained what types of revisions needed to be made as requested by the city attorney. During the discussion it was determined that there was not agreement between the Board and staff as to the desired intent of the ordinance. The Board requested that staff draft a chart including a number of options for each proposed change in the ordinance. B. City Master Plan - discussion. Van Cort reported that this project was given high priority by Common Council this year and staff have begun preliminary research. He said that they expect to identify the components necessary for preparing a master plan by the Fall. C. Subdivision amendments. A proposal to simplify subdivisions which do not create a buildable lot (minor lot line adjustments) was discussed. Van Cort recommended that the definition of subdivision be changed so that only divisions which create new buildable lots be defined as a subdivision. The Board directed that van Cort draft amendments which provide that transactions in the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts involving a division of land for sale that does not create a buildable lot be processed by the Director of Planning and Development without review by the Planning Board. 7. Zoning Appeals Draft memo of codes committee recommendations was reviewed, moved by Schroeder, seconded by Kay, and unanimously passed. This Board has reviewed subject appeals and finds none that involve issues of citywide or long-range planning concern. They are remanded for action, with the following comments: Planning and Development Board -3- Minutes of February 25, 1992 Appeal 2097, for Special Permit to conduct a home occupation (computer software marketing) at 329 W. Buffalo St., in an R-2b zone, appears to meet the criteria specified by the ordinance. Appeal 2099, for Area Variance to height restrictions to allow construction of a boat storage facility at Johnson's Boat Yard, 101 Pier Rd., in an M-1 zone, is of great concern because of the probable visual impact on surrounding community facilities with high public use (golf course, Farmers' Market, etc.) due to the sheer size and lack of features of the proposed structure. If permitted, it is suggested that ways be sought to offset the appearance of bulk and lack of scale by some method of relatively simple and inexpensive design treatment, including tree planting. Appeal 2101, for Use Variance to permit music instruction as a home occupation at 417 Hudson St., in an R-1b zone, appears to involve something close to rezoning by variance, and may represent an undesirable precedent. Appeal 2103, for Special Permit to install a satellite dish for data transmission and receipt at 304 Elmira Rd., in a B-5 zone, appears to be acceptable under the intent of the ordinance. It is suggested that the dish be painted a neutral color with a dull finish in order to minimize its potential visual impact. Appeal 2104, for Special Permit to install a satellite dish for TV reception at 302 W. Green St., in a B-2a zone, raises a question as to the need for such a feature, which will be visible from several surrounding residential properties, when commercial cable offering extensive commercial programming is available (ref. Sec. 30.26 C4(ii)a) . Appeal 2105, for special Permit and Area Variances to allow operation of a day-care facility at 201-5 E. Tompkins St., in an R-2b zone, is essentially a matter in which neighborhood input will be of critical importance. Particular attention should be paid to assessing potential impacts on the neighborhood, with respect to the criteria stated in sec. 30.26 C3. Sign Appeal 3-1-92, for signs in excess of the number, area and location allowed, at 311 S. Corn St., in an R-2b zone, appears to involve signage that is redundant to denote the obvious and specific commercial nature of the property, and an excessive amount that is contrary to the intent of the ordinance. The premises is obviously a filling station, and its long-standing presence in the neighborhood, off the main area highways, assures that it will continue to serve primarily local and neighborhood trade. The proposed new lighted canopy will further emphasize its nature; excess signage seems at best unnecessary, while at worst it may be objectionable to neighborhood residents, and detract further from the character of the surrounding neighborhood. The proliferation of signage in the nearby B-2a zone, while necessary due to the nature and multiple occupancy of that premises, is not a valid argument for further visual clutter within the residential area. The intent of the Sign Ordinance is to reduce signage to an acceptable level when changes are made to existing nonconforming installations. While it may be reasonable and equitable to allow the existing free- standing sign pole to remain in use, to provide some distance recognition of the station's presence, it is suggested that the sign be reconfigured to eliminate the encroachment over the street right-of-way. Planning and Development Board -4- Minutes of February 25, 1992 8. Reports A. Committees of the Board. None B. Director. None C. Chair. Blumenthal asked for a representative on codes and Administration; Kay volunteered to participate on a temporary basis. D. Board of Public Works. None E. Planning and Development Committee. Schroeder reported that the W. state Street Rezoning proposal and West Hill Master Plan will be going to Common Council in March. The committee also discussed site Plan Review. The final report of the Inlet Island land use committee is available for review. 9. Approval of Minutes Approval of November Minutes moved by Adams, seconded by Schroeder and unanimously carried. Approval of January Minutes was deferred. Meeting was adjourned at 11:15 PM. epj-25FEB92.min/4-29-92 Ek) zoo ------------ _- s _ .- - _. . - ---_ -�a�►-ti:.... __ _ _ __ _ . - -- --_ __L 1.8 _C�..�e�-�-tic _ -- 12-c� . __i�nQ _ �_ _.__. . --. ---•-- -- --- �����. �----�'` - . _ _�`��� .. -- _ . __fig__ _ _ �' - _-- ���-_. �-- �,_�� _ --- ,-_