Planning Commission April 23, 2008 Minutes

Transcription

1 Planning Commission April 23, 2008 Minutes The Chairman called the meeting to order. The following members were present: John Mears, David Miller, Mike Zuilhof, Lee Silvani, Ned Bromm, Paul Ernst and Brett Fuqua. Alex MacNicol from Erie Regional Planning was present to represent the Planning Department. Mr. Fuqua moved to table the minutes from the February 27, 2008 meeting until the next meeting, Mr. Zuilhof seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Chairman Mears swore in everyone who wished to speak during the adjudication hearings. The first item on the agenda was an adjudication hearing to consider an application for a Conditional Use Permit for a dog grooming business to be located at 534 E. Monroe Street, filed by Patricia Thomas. Mr. MacNicol stated that this house had been used as a duplex; however, the owners were having trouble keeping tenants. The owner wished to convert the first floor to a dog grooming business. He stated there were two parking spaces and only one person would be working there. Staff had suggested that the applicant check with the Building Official to see if they needed an occupancy or building permit. Staff recommended approval of the application. Chairman Mears asked if anyone wished to speak regarding this request. Mercy Orafu, 532 Monroe Street, stated she was concerned with having a dog grooming business in a residential area. The buildings were so close together and no one wanted to rent in an area where there were dogs. She stated she owned a rental house close to this location and having this business there would have an effect on her tenants. She commented that a dog could get loose and hurt a little kid. Pat Thomas, 2012 Wade Blvd, stated she was the applicant and she asked if Mrs. Orafu had the green house which was next door to this property. Mrs. Orafu stated that she did. Mrs. Thomas stated that she couldn t keep tenants because of the drug raids on Mrs. Orafu s rental house. She commented that she did have a driveway which would hold two cars and she wouldn t have dogs outside. She commented that she didn t groom large dogs or pit bulls. Mrs. Orafu commented that the tenant who was raided for drugs has moved and that there were drugs everywhere in Sandusky. She stated that this house was just too

2 close and there were a lot of tenants who didn t want to rent if there were dogs there. She commented that this would hurt her and her tenants. Mr. MacNicol commented that the dogs wouldn t be staying there, it was strictly for grooming. No one else spoke the matter returned to the table. Mr. Zuilhof asked if Mrs. Orafu resided next door. She stated that she had tenants, it was a duplex. Mr. Zuilhof asked the applicant if it would ever be necessary for dogs to stay overnight, and what would she do if someone didn t pick up their dog. Mrs. Thomas stated she would then take it home with her. Mr. Zuilhof clarified that her intent was not to use this as a residence, only as a business. Mrs. Thomas stated she was going to use the downstairs for the grooming business and the upstairs would be for her office. Mr. Fuqua asked what the hours would be. Mrs. Thomas stated it would be Monday thru Friday from 9:00 5:00 with no weekend hours. Mr. Zuilhof commented that he knew of another dog grooming business in town which had a large dog walking area with a waste can so people could clean up after their dogs. He asked how Mrs. Thomas intended to deal with the issue if a dog needed to go outside. Mrs. Thomas stated that she had done grooming at home previously and she had never had a problem but if there were accidents, she would clean them up. She stated she didn t need a walking area. Mr. Fuqua asked how many dogs would be there at one time. Mrs. Thomas stated she usually took 1-2 hours to do one dog and she would allow time to get one finished before she got another one in. Mrs. Orafu asked how dog grooming could be allowed in a residential area. Mr. Zuilhof commented that the zoning was actually residential business and there were a lot of different businesses that could go in there; it wasn t strictly a residential zoning district. Mr. Fuqua commented that he appreciated Mrs. Orafu s concerns but it appeared to him that there would be a lot more problems caused by dogs in the neighborhood as opposed to someone just dropping off their dog to the groomer. He moved to approve the conditional use permit subject to the conditions required by staff, Mr. Zuilhof seconded the motion, which carried 7 0. The next item on the agenda was an adjudication hearing to consider an application for a Special Residential Occupancy Permit to allow a threefamily residential use in a two-family zoning district for the property located at 920 Central Avenue, filed by Fred & Teresa Good. 2

3 Mr. MacNicol stated that the lot size was 4300 s.f. and it was zoned for two-family residential. The house had previously been a three-family residence operating as a non-conforming use. It had been vacant for over a year and the non-conforming use had expired. Staff was concerned with re-establishing that use due to the amount of traffic and lack of off-street parking. Also, the Comprehensive Plan recommended that the density be reduced in areas where non-conforming uses expired. Mr. MacNicol also commented that the lot area was too small to support a three-family residence; it needed to be 6000 s.f. Staff recommended denial of the special residential occupancy permit. Chairman Mears asked if anyone wished to speak regarding this request. Fred Good, 1201 Central Avenue, stated that there was room for 4 off-street parking spaces in the rear of the property and the upstairs was broken into two small apartments which could be rented to one person each. He commented that each of those people would have one car and that would leave two spaces for the downstairs tenant. He felt that everyone that lived there could park in the back. Mr. Good commented that the staff report referred to improving the property and he planned on putting a lot of improvements into the property. He wanted to get the downstairs rented and then he could begin improving the upstairs units. Donald Luzader, 910 Maple Avenue stated he was against the application, he stated that he had lived in the area for 30 years and he had rental property in the area. Mr. Luzader commented that when 920 Central was rented, the tenants parked in front of his house. He stated that with three families, there were not only their cars, but also cars for their visitors parking all over. He commented that you wouldn t be able to squeeze four cars in the rear. Ron Jensen, 922 Central Avenue stated he had also lived there for over 30 years and he commented that one bedroom units do not stay rented. He stated he had been in the rental business for 25 years. He commented there had been over 40 tenants in the upstairs in the 32 years he had lived there. Mr. Jensen stated that there was 0 insulation in that house and people moved out overnight when they got the high heating bills. Mr. Jensen mentioned that he thought 2 spaces were required for each unit so that would be six off-street spaces that were required. Mr. Jensen stated that when his daughter came home from college on weekends, she had to park down the block because there were no available spaces on the street by his house. He commented that the tenants want to park on Central Avenue instead of in the back because the cars got broken into to. Linda Scroggy, 916 Central Avenue stated that if Mr. Good took out the trash area so that area could be used for parking, there would be trash all over the neighborhood. She agreed that there was not enough parking and at one time, all of the houses were single family houses. She stated that they had been turned into multi-family houses and people didn t stay there by themselves, they all had company. Mrs. Scroggy stated 3

4 that she parked in the back of their house and there were never any spaces available on Central Avenue or on Maple. She commented that the house that Mr. Good bought was even smaller than her single family home. She didn t see how you could put three families in there. Teresa Good stated that they lived farther down the block and there was parking issues down there also. She stated that there were four parking spaces available and she didn t feel it was fair to say that because people would have company, it shouldn t be allowed. She commented that everyone had company and they didn t have to supply off-street parking for them. Mrs. Good stated that the upstairs units were excellent for 1 person each and if it was combined into a larger unit, then you would have more children. She would prefer to have a single person upstairs so there weren t children going up and down the steps and bothering the downstairs tenant. She clarified that the garbage cans could be moved in order for the four vehicles to be located in the rear and there would still be a place for the tenant s garbage. Ron Jensen stated that the there had previously been a single woman living with her four daughters upstairs in the one bedroom apartment and there was nothing that could be done about it. He stated that there were 60% rentals in the City and they didn t need anymore. Mr. Good commented that the area was always crowded on the weekends and he suggested that they could put in the lease that the tenants were required to park in the back. Chairman Mears commented that you wouldn t be able to hold them to that since it was a public street. Mr. Zuilhof moved to deny the request for a special residential occupancy permit, Mr. Bromm seconded the motion. Mr. Zuilhof clarified that the denial wasn t because of prior practice, inadequate parking or garbage but because it wasn t sound planning and land use practice and didn t follow the Comprehensive Plan and zoning policies. That s how the decision would be made. Mr. Bromm read the following from the Comprehensive Plan: The greatest concern for the City is nonconforming situations in neighborhoods especially related to reuse potential, off-street parking, etc. Of paramount importance is the need to protect the integrity and stability of residential neighborhoods. Mr. Bromm stated that alluded to what Mr. Zuilhof said, it was because of what the zoning was and they were not going to worsen the situation. Mr. Zuilhof commented that he understood that the Good s were residents of the neighborhood and he was glad to see them doing this and improving the property. He appreciated what they were doing for the City. He thought there was economic viability in this property being used as a two-family residence. The motion carried

5 The next item on the agenda was an adjudication hearing to consider an application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a residential use on a parcel zoned limited manufacturing for the property located at 2828 Venice Road, filed by John Ward of Add More Storage. Mr. MacNicol stated that this request was for a conditional use permit to allow a residential accessory building to be used for personal storage. Staff had no objections. Chairman Mears asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak. John Ward stated that he was speaking in favor of it and there would not be any utilities in the garage, it would mostly be for storage of lawn equipment. Mr. Bromm moved to approve the conditional use permit subject to the conditions as required by staff; Mr. Fuqua seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Mr. Miller pointed out that the lot lines shown in the aerial photograph seemed to be off and he suggested that it be brought to the attention of the County so that it could be fixed. Next on the agenda was an application for site plan/off-street parking approval for an addition to a business building located at 2005 Caldwell Street, filed by Matt Parker on behalf of Hermes-Parker Concrete. Mr. MacNicol stated that there had been a fire at this location and a large portion of the building had burned. The applicant wished to rebuild a larger building. Mr. MacNicol stated that there were a few items in the staff report that the applicant had issues with, one being that the Traffic Engineer wanted the drive approach paved and the other one was the requirement for 14 paved parking spaces. Mr. MacNicol commented that the Traffic Engineer had agreed that paving the drive approach could wait until such time as when the City paved Arthur Street. Mr. MacNicol stated that they had six parking spaces shown on their plan and there was additional area that was paved where additional spaces could be located. Since the building addition was going to be mostly used for storage, 14 spaces were not really necessary. Chairman Mears commented that if the use changed, they would have to designate the additional parking spaces. Mr. Bromm moved to approve the application subject to the conditions as recommended by staff with the modifications stipulated at this meeting, Mr. Fuqua seconded the motion. Mr. Bromm commented that he had been out looking at the site and he noticed that people that worked there were parking against the west property line. He didn t think that they needed to require that area be paved. 5

6 Matt Parker commented that they would probably pave the entire lot within the next couple of years. Mr. Zuilhof commented that they had been trying to avoid requiring paving if it wasn t really necessary. The motion passed 7 0. The last item on the agenda, an application for site plan/off-street parking approval for a deck expansion at 212 Fremont Road, filed by Michael Prosser on behalf of Cabana Bob LLC was withdrawn by the applicant. There was nothing further for the Commission and the meeting was adjourned at 5:20 p.m. APPROVED: Mary L. Grendow, Clerk John Mears, Chairman 6