MINUTES
March 21, 2007
6:30P.M. City
Council Chambers
Members Present: Bernie Bossio, Nick Iannone,
Mark Furfari, Jim Rockis, and Jim Shaffer
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Christopher Fletcher, Planning
Director.
MATTERS OF BUSINESS:
A. Motion to approve the January 17, 2007 minutes
by Shaffer, second by Furfari. Motion
carried unanimously.
B. Motion to
approve the February 21, 2007 minutes by Rockis, second by Furfari. Motion
carried unanimously.
Motion by Rockis to amend
the agenda to consider item CU07-05/Lytle /
A. CU07-05
/ Lytle /
Fletcher read the staff
report and gave an over view of the proposal.
Ron Lytle,
Bossio N. Iannone asked for public comment, there being none the
public portion was closed.
Fletcher read the staff
recommendation. He stated that it is the
opinion of the Planning Department that hat the preferred residential use in the B-4
District is either mixed-use or over-store dwelling types. The objective of this land use pattern is to
maintain and preserve a non-residential or commercial presence at street
level. Although the proposal is in a B-4
District, the neighborhood it is located in is quite different from the central
downtown business core. He continued
that it is the opinion of the Planning Department that a business use in this
structure would be inappropriate and historically inaccurate.
Fletcher stated that the
Board of Zoning Appeals must determine whether the proposed request meets the
standard criteria for a conditional use bay reaching a positive determination
for each of the “Findings of Fact” submitted by the applicant.
M. Fletcher stated that staff
concurs with each of the findings of fact as submitted by the applicant for
Findings of Fact #1 thru #7. Staff
recommends an addition to finding for #8 that the structure will remain
residential.
Findings of Facts:
1.
Question - Congestion
is the streets is not increased, in that:
Answer – “The existing three-bedroom
house will be converted into one 1 bedroom unit and one 2-bedroom unit. There will be no increase in tenants.”
Move to accept by Shaffer, second by Iannone, Motion
carried unanimously.
2.
Question – Safety from fire, panic, and other danger is not
jeopardized, in that:
Answer – The petitioner is improving the structure
by completely rewiring the structure and providing new fire escapes
where none existed.
Move to accept by Shaffer, second by
Furfari. Motion carried unanimously.
3.
Question – Provision of adequate light and air is not disturbed,
in that:
Answer-
The building is an existing two-story structure and no new exterior
work is proposed.
Move to accept by Furfari,
second by Shaffer. Motion carried
unanimously.
4.
Question – Overcrowding of land does not result, in that:
Answer - There are no additional tenants proposed and
the only structural modifications proposed are interior separation walls
between the units. The structure will
remain as is on the exterior.
Parking for the property was questioned by a board
member.
Mr. Lytle stated it will be created behind the house,
approximately two spaces.
Motion to
accept by Furfari, second by Rockis.
Motion carried unanimously.
5.
Question - Granting this request will not create inadequate
provision of transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks, or other public
requirements, in that:
Answer - There are no additional tenants proposed,
just separated space in an existing structure.
Move to accept by Shaffer, second by Iannone. Motion carried unanimously.
6.
Question – Granting
this request will not create inadequate provision of transportation, water,
sewage, schools, parks, or other public requirements, in that:
Answer - The proposed project will only result in a
duplex with no additional tenants, restaurant, preserving and enhancing
historic relevance of the building.
Motion to accept by Shaffer, second by Rockis. Motion carried unanimously.
7.
Question – Value
of buildings will be conserved, in that:
Answer – The
value of the structure will increase due to renovations.
Motion to accept by Furfari,
second by Iannone. Motion carried
unanimously.
8.
Question - The
most appropriate use of land is encouraged, in that:
Answer – The structure will remain residential.
Motion to accept by Rockis, second by Furfari. Motion carried unanimously.
Shaffer moved to grant the conditional use of a
two-family dwelling in the B-4 District requested by the petitioner with the
following staff recommended conditions:
·
That the applicant must submit, the to the satisfaction of the Planning
Director and City Engineer, a solid waste storage and removal plan prior to
building permit issuance.
·
That the applicant must improve vehicular access to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer.
Iannone seconded.
Motion carried unanimously.
Chair Bossio addressed the
issue of applications being brought to the board that are not legible or to
scale and stated that future applications must meet the criteria set forth or
they will be tabled or rejected.
OLD BUSINESS:
A.
CU07-03 / Wubbie Development Group /
At the February meeting, the
Board voted to table the petitioner’s conditional use request so that
additional information could be presented by
The Board raised questions
concerning a development project that was approved on the adjoining property, west
of the old Masonic Lodge building, and any potential incompatibilities that may
arise with a zero lot line development. In
respect to the concerns, the developer has modified the interior layout so that
windows serving the proposed units would be located on the east façade only,
facing the small alley. It does not
appear to adversely impact the adjourning property development or the ability
to provide adequate lighting, ventilation, etc. for their proposed dwelling
units within the proposed project.
Pursuant to the attached
letter from Mr. Robert Shuman, the petitioner is withdrawing its conditional
use application at this time. The
developer plans to provide commercial laundry space on the lowest level of the building.
The lowest level of the
subject building is considered the ground floor and not the basement because,
by definition, more than one-half of the floor’s height is above the average
level of the adjoining ground. As such,
the area and location of the commercial laundry space will change the
originally contemplated conditional “multi-family” use of the building to
“mixed-use dwellings” and “Laundromat,” which are permitted uses in the B-4
District. Access to the commercial
laundry area will be provided through an entrance along the private alley
between the Masonic Lodge and the adjoining law office. Access to dwelling units on the ground floor
that are behind the commercial laundry space will be provided at the rear of
the building.
It is the opinion of the
Planning Department that the concerns raised by the Board at the February
meeting have been adequately addressed by the developer. As such, no further action by the Board of
Zoning Appeals is required or recommended.
Motion to take off table by
Rockis, second by Shaffer. Motion
carried unanimously.
The adjoining property
developers are also available for discussion.
Shaffer thanked Ms. Cutright
for her input and information.
Rockis asked if Ms. Cutright
believes the building was built for residential use.
Ms. Cutright stated that although
she did not believe it was built for residential use, it would be the best use
for the building.
Shaffer asked for
clarification with the zero lot line.
Fletcher stated that he
spoke with the property owners regarding the building and fire codes. The development group redesigned the
buildings windows to replace the need for an alley and that this project will
be handled internally.
Shaffer discussed the issues
of dealing with structures on a case by case basis after hearing Ms. Cutright’s
information.
NEW BUSINESS:
A. V07-09
/ Hardesty /
Chair Bossio advised he would be abstaining from
discussion and vote as the subject property was previously his personal
residence. Vice-Chair Iannone presided
over this portion of the meeting.
Fletcher read the background and analysis of the
request that states the applicant seeks to construct a 15ft. X 15ft. addition
(sunroom) onto the rear of the existing structure. The rear setback for the proposed addition is
five (5) feet. He continued that the
minimum rear setback requirement in the R-1 District is 25 feet. As such, the petitioner must obtain a 20-
foot variance to permit the proposed 5-foot rear setback. The proposed improvement project meets all
remaining applicable design and performance standards.
David Hardesty,
Fletcher read the names of neighbors that submitted
letter of support, the include: Robert and Daphne Schreiber, 544 Burroughs
Street; Rob and Laura Morgano, 450 Cypress Street; William and Marie Graham, 532
Burroughs Street; and Paul and Kathleen Speaker, 548 Burroughs Street.
N. Iannone asked for public comment. There being none, the public portion was
closed.
Fletcher read the staff recommendation. He stated that the Board must determine
whether the proposed request meets the standard criteria for a variance by
reaching a positive determination for each
of the “Findings of Fact” submitted by the applicant. He continued that staff recommends approval
of the variance as requested with the following addition to the first finding
of fact:
·
The location of
the proposed addition is most appropriately situated because the project will
enclose an existing patio area that currently enjoys privacy landscaped
screening. Further, the location of the
proposed 15’ X 15’ addition will enjoy a greater setback from the rear parcel
line (functional side) than it would from the side parcel line (functional
rear).
Shaffer moved to accept the findings of fact as
submitted by the petitioner and with staff recommendation. Rockis seconded. The motion carried
unanimously.
Shaffer moved to grant a rear yard setback variance
of twenty feet (20’) as requested by the petitioner. Rockis seconded. The motion carried unanimously.
B.
CU07-04 / Novichenks Too, LLC /
Fletcher gave background and
analysis of a proposal by Mr. Dennis Johnson to obtain a “Private Club” use
approval for Novichenks Too, located in the former Jackie’s Place at
Fletcher continued that “Restaurant,
Private Wine” and “Tavern” uses are permitted by right in the B-2 District and
that because Mr. Johnson seeks to sell liquor in addition to beer and wine, the
use is considered a “Private Club,” thereby requiring conditional use approval
as per Table 1331.05.01 “Permitted Land Use” of he Planning & Zoning
Code.
The petitioner has submitted
a proposed menu, business description, and interior layout that characterize
the establishment. Mr. Johnson is also the
proprietor of Novichenks located in the
Robert Brand,
Kathleen Musick,
David Musick,
Robert Musick,
Bossio clarified the
machines as video poker machines, and that they already existed at Jackie’s and
that the liquor license will not affect the machines.
Mr. Musick stated that he has
concerns that a new business of this type will draw more traffic than the old
one and there is not any room.
Elizabeth Neely,
Mr. Brandt stated there is
no intention for a gentlemen’s club and that it is a long time business they
want to refurbish and continue to operate.
He stated that parking across the street will handle twelve cars and the
garage area behind the bar could be removed to provide 10-12 additional parking
spaces. The question of property values
based on the business should not be different because the business has been
there and they are looking to increase the value of the business. He affirmed that when the bar closed, it was
celebrated as a neighborhood icon and they want to keep that same feel without
dramatic changes.
Mr. Brandt was asked about his
experience operating other bars and expected operating hours. Mr. Brandt advised he and Mr. Johnson have
operated the
Fletcher advised signage has
not been discussed due to the need for approval.
Furfari asked about the
estimated capacity.
Mr. Brandt stated approximately
48 patrons.
Bossio asked what asset liquor
would provide to the location.
Mr. Brandt stated it would
allow for a drink menu expansion along with the food menu expansion. Most sports bars offer liquor, beer and
wine. It will be a bar and grill with waiter/waitresses
and food service.
Mr. Brandt was asked about
the frequency of live entertainment and advised it would be on a Friday happy
hour type basis.
Bossio asked if turned down,
would the property still move forward.
Mr. Brandt stated he was unsure, it would need to be reconsidered. He was advised in February, when he attempted
to obtain a liquor license that it would need to come to the Board.
Fletcher stated that an
adult entertainment establishment was only permitted in Industrial.
Bossio clarified with
Fletcher that if denied a liquor license, what would be the duration of the
video lottery license. Fletcher stated
the he believed that there was a 12 month waiting period.
Rockis asked why this was
zoned B-2, if it is setting in a residential.
Fletcher stated his understanding
it has always been a B-2.
Fletcher stated the parking
will not change because the business will not change.
Shaffer asked if parking
could be addressed at this time, based on the current requirements.
Fletcher stated that would
require approximately 15 spaces pending employees.
The Board members discussed
other areas in B-2.
Fletcher stated that B-1 was
not formally a neighborhood business. It
was established more like the current B-2.
Iannone asked if the Trinity
lot could be permit parking.
Shaffer stated he is
thinking of not approving and reapply in a year, this will allow the board to
look at the relationship to the neighborhood.
Bossio asked for public
comment. There being none, the public
portion was closed.
Fletcher read staff recommendation. He stated that the Board of Zoning Appeals
must determine whether the proposed request meets the standard criteria for a
conditional use by reaching a positive determination for each of the “Findings of Fact” submitted by the applicant.
Findings of Facts
1.
Question - Congestion
in the streets is not increased, in that
Answer – Existing business over 40 years, not adding
on to the footprint of building.
Furfari asked if parking could be provided. Mr. Brandt stated the garage behind the bar could
be removed for parking.
Furfari stated that if this is based on adequate
parking. Bossio added that not just the
parking will be an issue. Parking is the
issue brought up by the neighborhood. Bossio
stated the parking is 1 per 100 sqft.
There is 1500 sqft. The garage is
approximately 1800 sqft.
Fletcher recommends a site visit to discuss all
issues with parking.
Bossio clarified there were three bedrooms upstairs.
No alternate affirmative or negative motion was made.
2.
Question – Safety from fire, panic, and other danger is to
jeopardize, in that:
Answer – The
existing use has been in place for approximately 60 years. All interior and exterior construction must
conform to current building and fire codes.
Motion to
accept by Iannone.
Motion withdrawn
Move to accept
by Iannone, second by Rockis. Motion
carried unanimously.
3.
Question – Provision of adequate light and air is not
disturbed, in that:
Answer – There
are no changes proposed to the structure that would reduce existing provisions
of adequate light and air.
Move to accept
by Iannone, second by Furfari. Motion
carried unanimously.
4.
Question – Overcrowding of land does not result, in that:
Answer – There
are no changes proposed to the existing footprint of the building.
Move to accept
by Iannone, second by Rockis. Motion
carried unanimously.
5.
Question – Undue congestion of population is not created, in
that:
Answer – There
are no changes proposed to the existing footprint of the building or increase
in the scale and scope of the previous tavern use.
·
Motion by
Shaffer to find in the negative by rejecting the finding presented by the
petitioner. Second by Rockis. The motion failed on a 2-3 vote. Shaffer and Bossio voted in favor of the
negative motion. Iannone, Rockis, and
Furfari voted in opposition of the negative motion.
·
Motion by Rockis
to find in the affirmative by accepted the finding presented by the
petitioner. Second by Iannone. The motion failed on a 2-3 vote. Rockis and Iannone voted in favor of the
affirmative motion. Bossio, Furfari, and
Shaffer voted in opposition of the affirmative motion.
No alternate affirmative or negative motion was made.
6.
Question – Granting this request will not create inadequate
provision of transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks, or other public
requirements, in that:
Answer – There
are no changes proposed that would result in additional demand for public
services or facilities.
Motion to
accept by Rockis, second by Iannone.
Motion carried unanimously.
7
Question – Value of buildings will be conserved, in that:
Answer – There
are no changes proposed that would change the scale or scope of the previous
tavern use.
No motion to find in the affirmative or in the
negative was made.
8. Question –
The most appropriate use of land is encouraged, in that:
Answer – Because the petitioner is not proposing any
interior or exterior modifications to the structure that would result in a
significant increase in occupancy it dies not appear that the sale of liquor in
addition to beer and wine will substantially alter a use that has remained a
neighborhood landmark for approximately 60 years.
No motion to find in the affirmative or in the
negative was made.
Motion by Shaffer to table the conditional use
petition for the purpose of allowing the petitioner to submit additional
information and/or modify the proposed conditional use petition to address the
Board’s concerns for parking and the impact of a private club on the
neighborhood as they related to findings of fact #1, #5, #7, and #8, second by
Rockis. Motion carried unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Public Comments: None
Comments from Staff:
Fletcher commented regarding to the quality of
information of the applications. The Planning
Department can not disqualify applications based on the quality, only the Board
could make that determination. The
department can only ensure the applications are complete.
Board members discussed issues with applications and
agreement on standards.
Bossio stated that it should be a “to scale” drawing
based on the code. Bossio asked for
benchmarks for applications.
Fletcher suggested a letter with information be
attached.
Board members suggested including items in the letter
such as need a to-scale drawing, must be legible, and have example answers for
questions.
ADJOURNMENT:
9:00 PM