Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-19-1992 P&Z MINUTES . • PLANNING AND ZONING COMIVIISSION MINUTES Meeting of November 19, 1992 Present: Chairman Chuck Randolph, Rita Earl, Tom Ensley, Phil Frye, Mary Higdem, Wanda Anthony and Rick Wells. Staff: Ed Christopher, Teri Ottens and Liz Yeary Absent: None A pre-agenda meeting was held at 7:00 p.m. when general agenda items were discussed. At that time amendments were made to the previous minutes. The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was then called to order by Chuck Randolph at 7:15 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers. The amended Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of October 15, 1992 were approved as submitted (the amendment reflected the seconding by Wanda Anthony of the motion by Tom Ensley regarding the Special Use Permit for Dr. Hafen). The minutes of the October 29, 1992 meeting were also approved. The Action Reports were approved as written. The first public hearing was for a Zone Change from R-2T to M-1T for a portion of Block 55A (1209 N.3rd) applicant, Stephen Lloyd. Liz Yeary made the presentation to the Commission explaining that Mr. L1oyd had been under the impression that when he made his original loan arrangements the parcel was commercial, since he had approached Planning and Zoning in the spring and had been advised that that was the case, but that Planning and Zoning had no record of this. The map is confusing since there is a small commercial parcel identified which might be mistaken for Mr. L1oyd's parcel. Ms. Yeary described the surrounding uses and the fact that the remainder of the Block was rezoned to industrial in 1983. Mr. Lloyd testified on his own behalf describing his request and the proposed use of the parcel as a paint/body shop. In response to a question from Commissioner Earl, Mr. L1oyd responded that the area has not significantly changed within the last 20 years. Not all of the streets are paved and only one home in the general area has been improved. In response to a question from Commissioner Earl, Mr. L1oyd commented that the closest residence not on the properry is approximately 100 feet away from the proposed building site. Ivers Wiley, of 119 Joliet, spoke concerning the rundown appearance of this whole neighborhood and that almost any development would be an improvement on what is there. He further commented that he would like to see some action taken concerning the appearance of the properties in the area. Mr. Wiley e�cpressed frustration with action taken to date to deal with the appearance of the neighborhood as regards junk. MINUTES P&Z 11/19/92 Page 1 r Commissioner Earl raised the possibility of tabling the request until the new Planning and Zoning Directo�'s appointment, but Mr. Lloyd requested immediate action since his loans have been granted. Commissioner Anthony asked if he would be prepared to fence the property and the applicant agreed that he was planning to do so. There was considerable discussion regarding the need for screening for various uses permitted in industrial zones, but the Commission were aware that such requirements cannot be tied to zone change requests. Staff commented that at the building pernut stage certain uses which require screening would be caught and the condition put on the permit, in the same way that parking and landscaping requirements are made. Tom Ensley offered a motion and Wanda Anthony seconded to recommend approval of the zone change from R-2T to M-1T to City Council for hearing on December 7, 1992. Phil Frye opposed the motion commenting that there are many other uses pernutted in the M-1T zone which would not be appropriate for that location. Commissioners Wells, Earl, Higdem, Ensley and Anthony voted in favor of the motion which passed. Commissioner Higdem commented that when the new Director is appointed, it would be appropriate to evaluate the whole area and ascertain what direction it is going and what would be good planning and try and alleviate some of Mr. Wile�s frustrations. The second public hearing was a Special Use Permit application to operate a one-chair barber shop at 1422 Qeveland Blvd, (applicant, Bill & Micla Schuetz). Chairman Randolph at this point advised the Commission that since he is a noticed property owner in the subject area he would not be casting a vote. Ms. Yeary explained the application, advising Commission that Ms. Schuetz first approached the Planning and Zoning Department for a permit as she was scaling down her business to one operated out of her home because of the high cost of renting a commercial building downtown. She further informed staff that she would not be making structural alterations to accommodate the new use since she had a room in the back (formerly a"mud room") which she could use. Staff wrongly informed the applicant that she simply needed a Home Occupation Permit and later corrected the error by advising her to apply for a Special Use Permit. The Building Department advised the Plaruiing Department that the applicant had applied for a Pernut to Remodel a portion of her home. The applicant, Micki Schuetz, then offered testimony regarding her application. She had applied for the original pernut on the instruction of her building contractor. She described the parking availability, that she would be the only person employed and that she works by appointment only. pamela Carr of 1416 Cleveland spoke in opposition to the request citing 15 years of fighting to retain the residential nature of the neighborhood. Joy Block, 1421 Dearborn, direcdy behind the subject property, also opposed the request based on the unique residential neighborhood and the importance of retaining that character. She felt there was an increase in traffic but her main concern was the residential integrity of the neighborhood. She expressed her reluctance to be in the position of opposing such a good neighbor but feels the use is not appropriate. In response to a question from MINUT'ES P&Z 11/19/92 Page 2 , Comnussioner Frye, Ms. Block commented tha t she could not comme nt on other residential districts but her concern was the subject district. She felt there had been a lot of interest at one time in seeing the neighborhood go commercial, but recendy people have been purchasing properry in the neighborhood and improving their residences and she feels this is a step toward maintaining the residential nature of the neighborhood. Answering a question from Commissioner Wells, Ms. Block stated that any business which attracts clientele is a commercial business which does not appear to be a residential use and that approval of this request would set a precedent in the area. The next person to testify was Bill Gigray III who lives at 1523 Dearborn. Mr. Gigray cited Section 6-44(a) of the Zoning Ordinance which addresses damage, hazard, nuisance or detriment to persons or property in the neighborhood and requested the Commission to deny the permit based on the negative effect on properry values in the neighborhood should the permit be approved. He felt that in his experience and as a result of his education he is aware that the stability of the neighborhood was a factor in evaluation of properry values and this neighborhood is stable and has consistently opposed any commercial development. The witness asserted that a barber shop is a commercial use and as such belongs in a commercial district. The subject zoning district is an attractive , area in the communiry and provides a buffer between the two commercial ends downtown and on the easterly end of Cleveland. Mr. Gigray went on to comment that should the Commission approve the permit, very clear conditions of operation should be attached to it to ensure the impact on the neighborhood is m;nimized, as cited in Section 6-4-4(e) of the Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Wells asked the wirness if he did not feel in denying the pernut the Commission was depriving the applicant the right to use her property any way she chose. Mr. Gigray responded that courts have given the cities the right to zone districts. The applicant then returned to the podium and replied that she has complied with the conditions already suggested, that a lot of money has been spent on the house, and that she is willing to abide by any other conditions laid down. The Chairman then read a letter in opposition to the request attached to the file as Exhibit A from Leslie Beauchamp of 1522 Dearborn who cited the many years spent by area residents fighting to retain the residential neighborhood. Commissioner Earl expressed her opposition to commercial uses in residential zones and noted that the recent zone change of the neighborhood directly to the south and the request to investigate the neighborhood to the north should be taken into consideration in making a decision. Commiss Anthony concurred with Conunissioner Earl, adding that as a realtor she sees a need on the part of the Commission to protect the integrity of residential neighborhoods and to offer the necessary stability to those neighborhoods to protect their value. Commission Frye felt the same way but also commented that he personally would like to see Cleveland and Blaine be zoned commercial as a link between east and west. However, MINUTES P&Z I1/19/92 Page 3 . . , he is willin to den this ermit if such a denial is based on Findings of Fact as outlined g Y P by Mr. Gigray. Such Special Use Permits are in effect piecemeal zone changes which is not the way zone changes are accomplished. Cominissioner Higdem recalled the hearing on the Dearborn neighborhood rezone of October 29 and stated that the hearing was not so much about the zone change but about retaining the residential integrity of the neighborhood. Commissioner Ensley referred to past approvals of such Special Use Pernuts and commented that it was the responsibility of the Commission to evaluate every request and see how applicable it is to the area. Because of the history of the area and because the area is under study he felt it was not appropriate to approve this Special Use Pernut. Motion was made by Tom Ensley to deny the Special Use Permit for a one chair barber shop at 1422 Cleveland based on finding that the propercy was originally purchased for a residence, that this is a unique area, and that a commercial use is a detri.ment to the neighborhood, all of which are reasons for denial under Section 6�-4Ca) of the Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Ensley asserted that the applicant failed to prove special circumstances why the pernnit should be approved. Commissioner Wells commented that the reason he is opposed to the use is that it is an inappropriate time to approve such a use when a land use study of the area has been requested. Wanda Anthony seconded the motion wluch passed unanimously. The third public hearing was a request for annexation, zone change from County to R 2 (Medium Density Residential) and Special Use Permit to construct a church on property located at 3203 S. Florida Avenue (applicant Wm. Brown: agent Gazy Spath, with the applicant for the Special Use Permit being the Seventh Day Adventist Church, agent Kevin Everson) . At this point in the meeting, Chairman Randolph was excused for a prior engagement. Ms. Yeary explained the request, noting that she had contacted the owner of the parcel direcdy to the north of the subject property (Jack Doan) who had responded that he did not wish to be included in the annexation request at this time. When the annexation request was initiated at City Council, the possibility of annexing parcels completely surrounded by the City was raised, but Council felt such a process should not be dealt with until a Planning and Zoning Director was appointed. The first person to testify was Nir. Spath on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Spath emphasized that the applicant did not wish to proceed with annexation and zone change if the Special Use Permit were rejected. Mr. Spath went on to explain that there are three contiguous parceLs involved which the Church is buying contingent on approval of the Special Use Pemut. Parcel 1 contains a house and acreage in the rear which will be sold off as one parcel. Parcel2 is where the church and community services center is planned. Parcel 3 is the easterly portion of the MWUTES P&Z 11/19/92 Page 4 property which ultimately the church may decide to sell off, if access can be provided across Wilson Drain, or may be developed by the church, but there are no immediate plans for that parcel. Kevin Eveison then spoke on behalf of the Church, describing the nature of the church, and explaining that at first the Community Services Center will be built and the church building or sanctuary will be constructed in a couple of years, depending on financing. Commissioner Earl referred to the building plan and expressed a wish to see the width of the driveway extended to 36' to accommodate people turning off Florida Avenue. The applicant also plans to move the handicapped parking from the area depicted on the preliminary plan to the rear of the Center for safer access. Commissioner Earl cited the need for improved street lighfiing on Florida at this location in addition to the proposed lighting for the church. The pastor, Richard Bernal, then testified, explaining the phasing of the development, the family oriented nature of the church and their willingness to be an enhancement to the community. In response to a question from Commiss�ioner Higdem, the pastor responded that there is no danc�ng, that the main focus of the church is community outreach In response to a question for Commissioner Earl, Mr. Spath queried the necessity for street improvements the whole length of the property frontage, but the Commission felt that this was a necessary part of the development which would be paid for when selling off Parcel 1. Dan Ryan of 3116 S. Florida, then testified in opposition to the request stating that he and his family had bought their property in order to live "in the country" and now see a planned unit development to the north and across the street a church. He also cited serious concerns as a police officer with the speed of traffic on Florida Avenue and the difficulty of access onto Cleveland from Florida. The Commission asked staff to raise these issues with the Traffic Commission. Mr. Ryan asked if there were to be f�unctions at the church faciliry which would attract children from the subdivision. The pastor responded that all functions are for families together and there would not be playground equipment to attract neighboring children. Motion made by Commiss Higdem and seconded by Rita Earl to recommend annexation of the subject property for approval by City Council with a comment that the Commission would like City Council to consider annexing "island" parcels as soon as possible. The motion passed unanimously. Motion made by Commissioner Earl and seconded by Wanda Anthony to recommend to City Council approval of a zone change from County R-2 to City R 2 for the subject properry based on finding that the adjacent area is R-2 and that it is compatible with the zoning that exists in the County. The motion passed unanimously. Motion made by Wanda Anthony and seconded by Rita Earl to approve the application for MINUTES P&Z 11/19/92 Page 5 � a Special Use Permit to construct a church on the subject properry subject to the following amended conditions: 1. Prior to construction the owner will secure a valid building pernut in substantial compliance with Exhibit I with full copies of all building plans. 2. The use of the properry is limited to a church and associated accessory uses. 3. No signs other than those identifying the church, directional signs, and legal temporary signs are pernutted. 4. Plans for site access and traffic circulation will comply with the Uniform Fire Code; 5. Prior to issuance of a building permit the owner shall submit a drainage plan, prepared by a registered professional engineer, for approval by the City Engineer and if appropriate by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and affected irrigation district; 6. The owner shall provide an adequate lighting system to serve the parking area and that portion of Florida Avenue. The design and installation of the lighting system is subject to approval by the City Engineer; 7. The owner shall install street improvements and sidewalks along street right-of-way of Parcels 1 and 2, as approved by the City Engineer, with a driveway width curb cut of 36' minimum. , , 8. The owner shall provide City water and sewer service to the facility to the specifications of the City Engineer. 9. The owner shall provide suitable landscaping, including trees, low shrubs and grassed area in front of the proposed building. The motion passed unanimously. Commiss�ioner Frye raised the policy practiced in other areas of communities eliminating the requirement for improvements in certain areas in order to encourage development. However, Commiss�ioner Higdem felt there is a need to address improvements at some time, and it is convenient to do so at the time of application. The next item on the agenda was tabled at the request of Bill Schwind, Director of Parks and Recreation. Ed Christopher, Code Enforcement Officer and Assistant Planner, described the study being undertaken regarding the area from Dearborn to the railroad tracks, and 13th to 20th. Ms. Yeary explained the concerns of City Council and their request not to undertake a major study until the Commission and Council could meet and discuss the implications for the community. MINUTES P&Z 11/19/92 Page 6 . . Staff then reported on City Council action and the possible upcoming agenda items for the Commission. Ms. Yeary advised the Conunission of the public hearing to be held December 3 at City Hall concerning downtown renovation and downtown historic ' preservation. She also asked the Commission for guidance regarding an application for Dr. Chen for a sign for a non-confornung use at 1602 Arlington and reported on the possible annexation and zone change request for a large area southwest of Caldwell. There was no other business and the meeting was adjourned at 10:05. � . � �� �./ Administrative ecretary, Chairman, Liz Yeary Chuck Randolph MINUTES P&Z 11/19/92 Page 7