Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-09-90 Zoning & Vacation r Qtummmrr Entail ZONING AND VACATION COMMITTEE akt Ile CUM1tau Coto% of tr (Mg of*ate Neigh The April 9, 1990, meeting of the Zoning and Vacation Committee was called to order by its Chairperson, Council Member Lee Slavinskas at 4: 00 PM in the Council informal meeting room. Persons in attendance included Council Members: Niezgodski, Voorde, Puzzello, Slavinskas, Zakrzewski, Duda, Luecke, Coleman, and Soderberg; Mike Danch, Gaylen Allsop, Larry Kloefple, T. Brooks Brademas, David Chapleau, Jon Hunt, Jack Roberts, Bernard Dietrick, John Phair, James Kronk, Don Porter, members of the news media, and Kathleen Cekanski- Farrand. Council Member Slavinskas noted that the first item on the agenda was to review Bill No. 2-90 which is a zoning request for the property located at 625 North Eddy Street. He noted that the Area Plan Commission at its meeting of March 20, 1990, gave an unfavorable recommendation to the request (copy attached) . Mr. Michael Danch of Peirce and Associates gave the presentation on behalf of Michael and Diantha Sutherland. He showed a preliminary site plan and an aerial photograph of the property in question. He stated that the proposed use would be to allow a barber shop and a manicurist for a total of two employees. He stated that this is a low intensity use. Originally, the petitioners desired to have the second floor to be used as residential but since the property is not currently "C" commercial, that it is not permitted. Mr. Danch noted that 17,000 cars use Eddy Street per day. Council Member Niezgodski asked why the Area Plan Commission gave an unfavorably recommendation. Mr. Danch noted that the Commission believed that the commercial zoning in the middle of this predominantly residential area would be counter productive and could be termed spot zoning. Mr. Danch noted that the proposed use would anticipate a clientele of 50% walk-ins and 50% through motor vehicle. Council Member Coleman noted that he voted against the re- zoning at the Area Plan Commission and cited the traffic flow as a primary consideration as well the residential character of the area. Council Member also provided for the committee a copy of a letter from the Northeast Neighborhood Council, Inc. , dated April 7, 1990, which opposed the re- zoning (copy attached) . Following further discussion, Council Member Coleman made a motion, seconded by Council Member Luecke that Bill No. 2-90 F Zoning and Vacation Committee 4-9-90 Page 2 of 4 be recommended unfavorably to Council. The motion passed by a 3-1 vote with Council Member Niezgodski voting against the motion and Council Member Zakrzewski abstaining. Council Member Slavinskas then noted that the next item to be reviewed was Bill No. 4-90 which is a request to re-zone the property located at 710 East Colfax Avenue. The Council Attorney noted that the petitioner is requesting a continuance of this bill to the meeting of April 23. Council Member Slavinskas then noted that the final item to be reviewed is Bill No. 9-90 which would amend the Municipal Code to add new subsections 21-89.5, 21-102 .5, and 21-104.5 entitled "East Bank Parking District. " Mr. Larry Kloefple from the Department of Economic Development gave the presentation. It was noted that his matter was heard at the March 20, 1990, of the Area Plan Commission and was sent without recommendation to the Council. He stated that the area is a unique area which is encouraging a pedestrian oriented development. He stated that the current bill has been under study by various departments of the City for the past 18 months. A block-by- block analysis has been conducted and it was determined that a total of 360 parking spaces would be needed. The City is in the process of putting 333 throughout this area. He then briefly highlighted that major changes with regard to the reduction to the parking requirements for commercial uses, restaurants and quasi-public uses. Mr. T. Brooks Brademus then spoke in opposition to the proposed bill and utilized a video presentation. He referenced a Board of Zoning appeals meeting and the specific parking problem of Madison Center and the proposed expansion of the Oyster Bar. Mr. Jack Roberts, the executive director of Madison Center stated that the facility has been in existence since 1977. Currently there are 215 employees at the Madison Center. He stated that they would like to be cooperative but in light of their multi-million dollar investment and proposed expansion and the proposed addition of 100 new employees, that parking must be properly addressed. He appreciates the ongoing assistance he has received from the City, but noted that in light of the parking violations of an ongoing nature of people utilizing the Madison Center Parking Lot, and the problem of litter and potential liability, that it is becoming an increasing and more difficult problem to address. Y Y Zoning and Vacation Committee 4-9-90 Page 3 of 4 Mr. Deitrick, one of twelve owners of the Oyster Bar noted that he had contacted several property owners in the area. A petition was circulated with 48 individuals signing the petition in favor of the proposed ordinance in its current form (copy attached) . He then provided maps to the Council indicating existing parking as well as the property owners in favor of the proposed bill. A substitute bill was then circulated to the committee members which was drafted by Deputy City Attorney David Chapleau. Mr. Chapleau noted that it was an attempt to try to satisfy the concerns of the individuals in the area (copy attached) . Mr Gaylen Allsop stated that he is an attorney which represents the Madison Oyster Bar and is one of its owners. He noted that he is excited about the development in this area and spoke in favor of the proposed bill in its current form. He noted that the problem is one of educating the people as to where to park as to opposed to a lack of parking spaces. Council Member Niezgodski questioned Mr. Roberts as to signage for the Madison Center Parking Lot. Mr. Roberts noted that currently there is no prohibition posted. Council Member Dudas suggested that perhaps such signage would help the current situation. Council Member Luecke questioned whether the current parking regulations are stopping development. Mr. Kloefple noted that there are problems related to the Mint Julip Building as well as the Opelika Building and noted that the cost per parking space averages between $5-6000.00. Council Member Luecke stated that perhaps the City should study linked development or a parking tax. Mr. Kloefple noted that parking garages were considered at one point but were ruled out since the benefit is not to all property owners. Council Member Luecke also suggested that impact fees be studies. In response to a question raised by Council Member Luecke, Mr. Hunt noted that the Transpo Trolley concept is still being explored however it appears to be quite costly. He also noted that his department is looking at the improvement district concept and is currently in the data gathering stage. Mr. Hunt stated that they are quite optimistic in this area however his department needs flexibility and further believes that the proposed ordinance is a good first step. Zoning and Vacation Committee 4-9-90 Page 4 of 4 Upon further discussion, Council Member Niezgodski made a motion to consider substitute Bill No. 9-90. There was no second at that time. Following lengthy discussion thereafter, Council Member Zakrzewski made a motion seconded by Council Member Coleman that Substitute Bill 9-90 be entertained by the committee for review. The motion passed. Mr. Kloefple then highlighted that changes primarily set forth in Section 21-102.5 (b) . Several Council Members had questions with regard to the substitute version. Council Member Puzzello stated that she was opposed to having pedestrian requirements just in one area of the city. Mr. Deitrich stated that the original version of the bill was preferable to the property owners. Following further discussion, Council Member Luecke made a motion seconded by Council Member Zakrzewski that Bill No. 9-90 be continued for a period of two weeks for further discussion. Council Member Luecke noted that he is desirous to receiving more information with regard to development fees and impact fees. Council Member Coleman stated that he prefers not to continue the bill and that the Council proceed tonight with questions on fees being answered at tonight's meeting. Following further discussion, a vote was taken with the motion passing by a 3-2 with Council Members Neizgodski and Coleman in the minority. There being no further business to come before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 5:40 PM. Respectfully submitted, Council Member Lee Slavinskas Chairperson, Zoning and Vacation Committee Attachments