Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Design topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors push back; Board continues Muny Housing Authority storage building proposal on Madison Street
Summary
The Muny Housing Authority's plan for a locked storage building for maintenance equipment at Madison and Ninth drew neighborhood opposition over corridor and landscaping standards. The board continued the case to the June meeting and asked the authority to present a proposed landscaping plan.
The Board of Zoning Appeals continued a contentious variance request from the Muny Housing Authority to let the agency build a secure storage building for lawn and maintenance equipment at the northeast corner of Madison Street and Ninth Street.
Ashton Surveyor representative Kathy Vanise said the authority needs secure, on‑site storage after repeated thefts of equipment. The project would be a single‑story, partially stone‑clad building intended to hold mowers and other maintenance gear and be surrounded by a six‑foot vinyl security fence. Because of overhead electric lines and a gas line along the property edges, vanise said the required corridor plantings and larger trees could not be placed in the city’s green‑belt area without conflicting with utility easements.
Neighborhood groups and nearby institutions urged the board to deny or delay the variance. Leslie McCroy, president of the South Central Neighborhood Association, argued that Madison Street is a key corridor and that city corridor standards exist to create a more welcoming corridor for future investment. "Storage facilities do not add new neighbors or generate foot traffic," she said, urging the authority to locate equipment in existing vacant city‑owned space instead of building on remaining green space.
The YWCA, which is redeveloping nearby Garfield Elementary, recommended the authority plant the corridor requirements elsewhere on the lot rather than waive them entirely. Board members expressed concern at approving a blanket waiver of corridor standards without a concrete, site‑specific landscaping plan. The board voted unanimously to continue the case to the June meeting and asked the applicant to return with a specific landscaping proposal that either meets corridor intent or explains the constraints in detail.
The continued schedule gives the housing authority time to explore alternative plantings, reconfigure the site, or identify an alternate storage location.
