2001_0924_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

which would be negative. A fence between the properties would run at a diagonal along the property line, not parallel to the Sherren Street. He agreed with the denial of the sta,/j` recommendation on Comprehensive Plan and zoning and agreed with the interim use concept, except that item 5, the screening fence along the south line, not be constructed because of the existing natural barrier foliage. The foliage is on both the Dunnette and Agness properties. Bill Schom. Schom Realty, explained that the commercial realtor and owner (Rymer) told them that SUP follows with the property. The site had been used as a music academy business (for 40 years) and Schom believed the commercial realtor and Rymer. Eric Mueller, 2255 Lexington Avenue, said the interim use permit would be appropriate. He cited a "B-I " zone at Sandhurst and Lexington that had an old house, which was removed to allow a new B-1 business. Sally Goodroad, 1075 Sherren Street, stated she was confused with uses "River Valley Mortgage " and "Schom Realty ". Wl�y, ifMr. Rymer had a business for 40 years, would M Agness not accept an interim use pertnit to operate a business? She felt threatened by the proposalfor a group home. She was opposed to rezoning to "B-I " because such zoning would be pertnanent. An interim use permit is a renewable use pertnit with conditions, which are reasonable and fair. The property would only be used for real estate or mortgage office. Ms. Goodroad recommended that the fence along the east property line remain (and possibly be improved) but should not be removed. Ms. Goodroad has installed and maintained the existing fence for years. No snow should be placed against the fence. Cindy Gardner, 2261 Lexington Avenue, supported the conclusion (interim use) except for the intrusive light, which has been corrected by the applicant. The noise is buffered by the natural vegetation. Ed Hanes 1063 Sherren St., concurred with neighbors and recommended the interim use permit, which could be renewed. Frank Hagerry, 1086 Sherren St., concurred with Roger Dunnette's comments supporting an interim use pertnit. Craig Boates, an attorney representing Schom Realty and River Valley Mortgage witlun the same building, indicated item 12, page 4, of the draft interim use pertnit resolution states that there is "no vested rights or legal entitlement " and that he objected to this wording because of uncertainty of renewal. Mark Traynor asked Mr. Boates if the interim use permit request is being withdrawn (No). Mr. �Ike clariFed that a"B-I " does not guarantee a complimentary use, but does increase neighbor uncertainty. Mr. Boates stated that there are few other uses for the site; no building could be built except a small office building. Member Traynor asked for concerns within draft interim use permit. Mr. Boates concern was that the pertnit is o� an interim use, not pertnanent. No further comments were ofl`'ered; Chair Mulder closed the public hearing. Cha1r Mulder asked the Planning Commission to narrow the options available to the site. PF3329 RCA (092401).doc Page 7