PCMin_85May6 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 6, 1985 PAGE 3 rolls, and the City is requested to maintain the alley in the future. He felt that removal of the Croft house will substantially decrease the property value of his home as well as the neighborhood, which they will have to be compensated for as well as the cost involved to the city in condemnation. Mr. Meyer is specifically concerned about the encroachment of commercial development into a residential neighborhood and that the inevitable could result of commercial development pushing further into the residential area, which will even further erode property values. Granting the conditional use request will set a precedent in the future. It does not enhance City development. If the project goes ahead, he will be forced to sell his property and consider legal, economic and political alternatives. Jim Bykowski, 1745 St. Mary's Street, referred to conditions spelled out JIM in the City's Municipal Code. in that it will substantially diminish property BYKOWSKI, values., no specific plans have been presented to address the drainage issue 1745 ST. (the neighbors would feel the City. is unjustified if they are requested to MARY'S pay for storm sewer extension to aid a commercial development), and adequate STREET measures have not been taken to address the egress/ingress issue.. Mr. Bykowski felt increasing the number of parking spaces by 50 percent and the total occupancy by 100 individuals is too substantial. No provision has been made for increased employee parking. Steve Reiter, 1746 Fry, stated that approval of the conditional use request is STEVE • not proper for the general area. No conditional use should be granted if it REITER, diminishes property values. 1746 FRY STREET David Bishop, 1765 St, Mary's Street, stated that granting the conditional use would set a precedent to gut the neighborhood and to hurt its residential DAVID BISHOP appeal. 1765 ST. MARY'S ST. John Labalestra countered points made by the St. Mary's residents by stating that Scheme E was not a workable plan as pointed out by the City Planner, the drainage problem would have to be addressed and corrected no matter JOHN what development goes in, it was a City decision to use tax increment LABALESTRA financing for the project not the Lido, and felt their plan as presented was a good compromise for everyone. Fred Kueppers, Attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Hermes, expressed concern about FRED the change of zoning and pushing commercial property into a residential KUEPPERS, area, the parking conditions have worsened and questioned whether it is a ATTORNEY wise City decision to allow. encroachment of parking into a residential area, FOR MR. the taking of a private driveway which affects the Hermes property by AND MRS. diminishing its value by reducing the square footage (which would have an NORBERT impact in case of redevelopment), the responsibility of the alley maintenance is tkie responsibility of the Hermes and the City will be responsible for its HERMES maintenance and the condemnation will cost the City money. Mr. Labalestra indicated they would be willing to maintain the alley if LABALESTRA requested to do so by the City. •