CC MIN 1970 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

4 APPEAL OF ANNA BELLE YOUNG and DR. PAUL YOUNG from denial by the Planning Commission of application for a Variance from the off-street parking limitations of the Zoning Ordinance, 2900 Broadway (lot 13 and Portion of lot 14, Block 10, Dingee Park) in a "PO" (Professional Office) District, and presented to Council for consideration. This matter had been continued from meeting of December 8th at the request of attorney for the Appellants, and related to their request for a permission to add one optical office and two parking spaces on a lot where off-street parking facilities were below standards in the Ordinance, which had been denied by the Planning Commission following public hearing on November 25. Councilman Keckley requested that Planning Commission report be read in full, which detailed the progression from its construction in 1928 as an apartment building through a series of conversions of various portions of the building to medical offices, with subsequent reconversion to apartment units above the ground floor. Attorney Robert Dell'Ergo, representing Dr, and Mrs. Young, commented on the staff report, and stated the basic premise is that the nonconforming use is not one that is undesirable and should not prevent change being made which is beneficial. The proposal is for creation of a small optical office to be occupied by Franklin and Risi and to involve no manufacturing activities. They anticipate between ten and twenty patients per day, requiring perhaps no more than ten minutes each. The optical firm feels this location appropriate due to proximity to principal sources of clients. He felt increased parking space requirement under the Ordinance was unnecessary, because the nature of type of medical services does not involve long appointments, and noted there is sufficient on -street parking to augment the parking lot. Planning Director discussed the Zoning Ordinance requirements for specific numbers of parking spaces under given conditions, but indicated disapproval where this requirement works to the detriment of adequate standards as to size of the spaces and accessibility. Council discussed some of the aspects of the design of the lot, involving necessity to back into Birch Street in order to exit from the lot, as well as substandard length which resulted in standard autos partially overhanging the public side- walk, and inaccessibility of two spaces in relation to diagonal parking spaces opposite. It was noted by Council that Birch Street being one-way made backing into the street a relatively minor problem. It was learned the non -conforming status of the building is by virtue of its residential uses, since this is a professional building. Council requested opinion from Attorney concerning the applicable Article of Zoning Ordinance relating to appeals to Council, and he advised the matter can be considered in this type of situation in a manner similar to a judicial proceeding, and it was the duty of Council to weigh the evidence as to relevance and make its determination on that basis. Councilman Rosselli moved to reverse the action of the Planning Commission and grant the Variance, seconded by Councilman Weymouth, Councilman Keckley opposed the motion because he felt it was Council's duty to uphold the Ordinance