10-29-98 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The Commission discussed how an expansion of Beisswenger’s would fit into the proposed ordinance amendment. Zisla stated perhaps there should be two standards--one for existing businesses and one for new businesses. LeFevere responded that, if the City changes the ordinance for an area of the City, but the owners of the land in that area are allowed to operate under the old ordinance, then the City has not changed the ordinance. Zisla stated there must be a way for the existing businesses to remain viable. LeFevere responded that part of the ordinance would not change. There would be the same choices about how far the City is willing to allow upgrades to occur in nonconforming uses in a MX District as exists in the rest of the City. Zisla asked if the intent is that we do not intend all nonconforming uses to continue. LeFevere responded such businesses would be allowed to continue, but not to expand or change to another nonconforming use. For Beisswenger’s, apart from the outside storage issue, the land area problem would make it a nonconforming use. When a city changes the ordinances, to a certain extent, the city does not have the authority to require existing uses to cease. The City can grandfather in something where it does not want to create an unnecessary hardship, which may take care of Beisswenger’s 12,500 square foot expansion. Schiferl stated the Zoning Ordinance by itself will not effect much change. The area would be subject to redevelopment. How much of the Vision would be driven by City redevelopment? The Zoning Ordinance would then only dictate the uses. If the City ends up owning property in the area, it could do what it wants at that point. Schiferl said that would be the time to think about a new zoning. Schiferl commented the proposed ordinance amendment was unworkable. LeFevere responded the area has been under a moratorium for two years. The justification for the moratorium is that the City is concerned about development of the area before implementing the Vision is possible. A moratorium can only remain in effect for a limited period. To a certain extent, the proposed ordinance amendment would have the same effect as the moratorium. If the Zoning Ordinance is not amended, uses inconsistent with the Vision could not be turned away. Locke stated the moratorium was enacted so a Vision could be created. Locke said LeFevere was correct in ? that, if the Zoning Ordinance is not amended, the area could go 180 away from the Vision. Livingston asked about underground parking. Bury’s point about the water level is a good one. Could the parking be on grade and the apartments built on top of the parking? O’Brien asked if the intention is to have the parking underground or simply enclosed. Locke stated the concern is that garages could be built in conjunction with apartment buildings. Locke said the City may not want such parking to be completely underground. LeFevere commented the proposed zoning should be viewed as a “work in progress.” If certain conditions are found such as a high water table, there may be justification for a variance. Should a wonderful project comes along, the Ordinance could be changed if the project is consistent with the overall Vision. The MX zoning would allow for quality development whether it is industrial, commercial or residential in nature. The zoning in the area must be flexible to encourage quality development and will benefit all the properties in that area. Livingston suggested restricting the parking for residential by having one indoor parking place for each bedroom. According to the proposed ordinance amendment, there are restrictions on parking spaces. Locke responded the City’s parking ordinance would apply to these uses. The requirement for multi-family housing is two spaces per unit plus ten visitor parking spaces and an additional half space per each dwelling unit beyond ten units, which comes to about two and a half spaces per unit. Schiferl asked about the procedure for the rest of the meeting. Livingston asked if anyone in the audience had comments. Jim Van Dale, the owner of Accurate Press, spoke against the proposed amendment: ? He will need to expand his building three years to double its size. I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\MINUTES\1998\10-29-98.WPD 3