pm_980909 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

two years for B-1 zoned uses. Schreier stated he could not afford to redevelop his house. Member Cunningham stated that two years for redevelopment was unrealistic. He noted that this area could be a small business area, done at a time to be decided by the property owner. MemberWilke asked what would happen if Charles Cabinets was not on the residential site. (It is proposed as a separate site and project.) MemberRhody noted this is an opportunity to create a transition of uses. Mr.Schreier asked the Commission to deal with the site as if they owned it. He said the Commission is penalizing Schreier by having to include the second lot in the development. Member Olson asked that if 31 spaces are not needed, would a drainage plan still be necessary? (Yes) There were no questions from the public. Mrs. Lee Schurrs, 3058 Wilder Street, stated the Schreier’s operation has been a good neighbor. She supported the expansion. The use is pre-existing, even prior the City Plan. The operation has not been noisey or dusty. There was no further comment; the hearing was closed. MemberMulder described the use as “spot” rezoning by a good neighbor. The Planning Commission’s vision should be long term for the City, not a specific lot. The PUD provides more control over the site. The underlying zoning should be changed to B-1. The PUD does indicate that the city has set in motion a plan or vision. A single parcel PUD is reactive instead of proactive. MemberKlausing described the dilemma of one versus two parcels. He asked if the neighborhood realizes that this strip is potentially moving toward a business or light industrial use. Allowing the PUD on one parcel preserves the business site and the city can work with the applicant to create the buffer for these residential neighbors. MemberRhody explained that his vision of the ultimate PUD is simply a strip of the first parcels adjacent to the east side of Cleveland as a buffer to residential further east. MemberKlausing asked how this would change if there was two parcels rather than one. Chair Rhody stated it would be a stronger statement of the Planning 3