HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1981-09-29 MINUTES
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING
SEPTEMBER 29, 1981
PRESENT: Chairman S. Cummings, Vice-Chairman M. Sampson, E. Nichols, R. Moran,
R. Schlather
ALSO: Appellants, appellants' representatives, other interested persons,
H. M. Van Cort, press.
1. S. Cummings called the meeting to order at 7:50 PM.
2. Approval of August 1981 minutes:
Correction of minutes requested by Schlather - change Slather to Schlather.
Nichols moved, second by Schlather to approve corrected minutes - PASSED
4-0.
3. Chairperson's report:
Noted that Board members had not received latest report of BZA decisions.
Reviewed results of BZA actions, pointing out that APPEAL 1393 for an
area variance at 108 College Avenue was denied, although the P & D
Board had recommended approval .
Discussed problem- of purchasers of property not being given inforrmat7-on_.
- _.
regarding zoning restrictions-. E;`Nichols suggested that realtors were not suf-
ficie-ntly informing thei.r clients, and that property is- sold with assurances
that variances are easily granted:--Suggested—drafting of letter to Board
of Real tors ou_tl i ni ng-_-zoning ordi:nances_and-_a-d-v si n-g_ that_purchasers
-be-made aware of restrictions.
R: -Schlather felt the problem is best handled by a communication between
the two boards with the Board of Realtors subsequently disseminating
information. Would emphasize that zoning variances are not matter of
right.
Van Cort suggested that P & D Board members offer to _discusa -_
zoning ordinance during meeting of Board of Realtors. Noted that there
is` a noticeable increase in the number of student owners, i .e. students
whose parents purchase houses, and that these purchasers may be particularly
unaware of zoning practices. Would suggest reminding realtors of this.
Proposed drafting of letter regarding this matter to be sent with.
September minutes for Board's comments and approvals
M. Sampson noted that informing potential student buyers about zoning
restrictions is better achieved through formal statement in the purchaser's.
contract to effect that house will be paid for only on condition that
variance is granted.
4. Old Business:
a) Southwest Park
E. Nichols gave update on proposed use of 10 acres of Southwest Park by
2
softball league, State's position is that no immediate decision need be
made; they emphasized that land was bought by city for recreation, and
that such use at any time would, in fact, strengthen a case for conversion
at a later time. Decision was made that 10 acres could indeed be developed
for softball without hindering later development. Decision formally
recorded in letter to Mayor by Mr. Mazzella.
Van Cort expressed reservations, noting that P & D Department earlier warned
of possible difficulties in altering use of land.
E. Nichols pointed out that Council 's resolution specifically referred
to temporary use.
Question raised as to role of P & D Board in matters such as these.
Noted that Board should be involved in long range planning.
Decision made to make P & D Department's report on Southwest Plan
available to Board members.
b) Subdivisions:
Van Cort requested approval of present subdivision proposal for 109
Cleveland/306 S. Plain subdivision. If not approved, owner will sell
property as is.
Motion by Schlather to approve, second by Moran. PASSED 4 - 0.
c) Other
R. Moran expressed concern over actual compliance of Kolar Machine,
407 Cliff Street with decisions of P & D Board and BZA, inquiring
as to possibility of obtaining follow-up reports on this matter.
Van Cort noted that such reports should be available, but that P & D
Board has no authority to enforce anything but subdivisions.
5. ZONING APPEALS CASES
APPEAL 1396: Appeal of JON. K & MONIKA R. CRISPIN for an Area Variance
under Section 30.25, Columns 12, 13, and 14 (front, side and rear yard
setbacks) and Section 30.49 (extension or enlargement of a non-conforming
property) to permit construction of a raised deck between the existing
house and garage at 111 Worth Street in an R-lb district. The property is
deficient in one front and one side yard setback, and if the deck is
constructed, the rear yard will also be deficient.
Monika Crispin was-present on behalf of this appeal .
Planning issues: Improves property value
Improves amenity of existing building
No traffic impact
No service or utilities impact
Minimal neighborhood effect
Hedge screens from view.
Staff Recommendation: APPROVAL
r 3
Neighborhood/Public Comment: None
Appellant Comment: Wish to build deck with access from dining room.
Requires replacing window with door.
P & D Board Comments and Recommendations: E. Nichols asked whether deck
was to be covered. M. Sampson inquired as to
whether access to garage is desired. Motion by
Schlather to approve, second by Cummings. PASSED
4 - 0.
APPEAL 1397: Appeal of STEVEN BLAIS, RICHARD GENEST, KENNETH KLIMPEL,
CHRISTOPHER MEIER, KAREN RACHEL and FRANCESCA VERDIER for an Area
Variance under Section 30.25, Columns 4, 11, 12, and 13 (off-street
parking, front and side yard setbacks)- and Section 30.49 (change in
use of a non-conforming property), to permit conversion of the two- -
family dwelling at 117 Hudson Street to a multiple dwelling. Multiple
dwellings are permitted in the R-3b district in which the property`
is located; however, the property is deficient in off-street parking
and setbacks for front and side yards.
Steven Blais, Christopher Meier, and Francesca Verdier were present
on behalf of this appeal .
Planning issues: Two-family dwelling being used as multiple dwelling
very large house with 7/8 bedrooms, probably well-
suited to multiple_occupancy_.
house can accommodate up to ten drivers Zoning
ordinance requires five parking spaces
house has only two spaces that are in line (one in
garage, one in driveway) , rather than side-by-side.
dense neighborhood with considerable parking problems.
Staff Recommendation: DENIAL for following reasons:
1. increasing parking problem on South Hill
2. Lack of specific plans on part of appellants
.to satisfy parking requirements .
Neighborhood/Public Comment:
Hugh Hurlbut, 101, 103, 105 Giles Street, was concerned with parking
problem; oftentimes cars parked on sidewalk. Noted
concern that property values will go down and neighborhood
will deteriorate. Did not object to multiple occupancy
status, but to increase in number of parked cars on
property.
Richard Holgate, owner of 115 Hudson Street (in letter read by S. Cummings) ,
experiences constant annoyance with occupants of 117
Hudson St. parking in his driveway. Was opposed to
variance on grounds that parking problem will worsen.
Elva Holman, City Alderwoman, stressed existing- traffic problems in a neigh-
borhood already filled with multiple housing units.
Alternate side of street parking adds to problem; people
already parking dangerously on Hudson Street curve. :
4
Multiple occupancy is also related to garbage
problem; garbage put out too early and strewn along
street as result.
Appellant Comment: S. Blais and F. Verdier reported that six people
occupied upper portion of house; two people were
renting lower level apartment. House was bought
on assumption of legal multiple dwelling status.
Previous owner purchased house for son, a student,
and later rented to as many as eleven occupants.
Pointed out:
1. Can always find parking space
2. Are reducing in real numbers the density
of the neighborhood by reducing the actual
number of occupants.
3. Are committed as homeowners to improving and
maintaining property.
4. Are willing to lease appropriate number of parking
spaces within 500 feet of property.
Also emphasized problem of selling house as large
as this in a neighborhood of multiple occupancy
dwellings as a two-family dwelling.
P & D Board Comments and Recommendations: R. Schlather pointed out
that the dilemma facing both the P & D Board and
the owners with a property such as this is becoming
prevalent; in pedestrian areas with excellent public
transportation access, is it realistic to deny a
variance on the basis of parking, especially when the
property has little chance of being sold as a two-
family dwelling?
Point made that even in potentially pedestrian areas
there are as many cars as anywhere else.
Van Cort stressed that concern with granting variance
derives from fact that variance will run with land.
Cummings noted again that the sale of property by realtors
to purchasers who are uninformed about zoning restrictions
is increasingly problematical.
Motion by Schlather to deny variance, second by
Nichols, PASSED 4 -- 0.
APPEAL 1398: Appeal of ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY for an Area Variance
under Section 30.25, Column 14 (rear yard) and Section 30.49(change
in use of a non-conforming property) to permit conversion of the gas
station at 108-112 South Meadow Street to a convenience food store and
gas station. The property is located in a B-4 district where the use
is permitted; however, the building is too close to the rear property
line.
5
John Keith of.ARCO and Mark Metzger, franchisee, appeared- on behalf_ ___
of this appeal .
Planning issues: rear yard too narrow
signage is potentially undesirable
Staff recommendations: APPROVAL on condition that plans be reviewed by
P & D Department before issuance of building
permit.
Neighborhood/Public Comment: None
Appellant Comment: J. Keith assured Board that ARCO sign would be within
50 sq. ft. limit, measuring 46 sq. ft. Spoke in
favor of addition of price signs, and "24 Hour"
sign, arguing that "24 Hour" sign is informational
rather than advertisement, and provides psychological
security to customers (eg. in emergencies) . Also,
ARCO has strict regulations prohibiting use of neon
signs; franchisees in violation of regulations are
informed by company of default. Was also willing to
ensure use of desirable signage by signing permit
to be issued by city. ,
Pointed out that the loss of mechanical service,
provided by owner-operated stations, is compensated
for by large professional garages that specialize
in service and repair. .
Suggested as well that greenery be part of building plan.
P & D Board Comments and Recommendations: Primary concern lay with signage
on property. Van Cort noted that in previous cases
signs that were not agreed to by Board were added one-
by-one to property,
S. Cummings, R. Moran, and E. Nichols expressed concern
over aesthetic desirability of "24 Hour sign.
M. Sampson also expressed dissatisfaction with the
influx of national name companies that displace owner
operated service stations. Result is inconvenience to
public in terms of mechanical servicing.
Motion by Nichols to approve on condition that strict
attention be given by Planning and Building Departments
to design and construction of proposed convenience store,
with especial attention to signs to be erected on site.
Second by Schlather. PASSED 4 - 0.
6. Miscellaneous: Report on progress of Rte. 96 proposals
Van Cort reported that proposal by Council for a new road to be
6
brought down from Cliff St. to Rte. 89 was referred to DoT and the
Federal Highway Administration. Reviewing this, they advise that
road is impossible to build due to high percentage of grade.
E. Nichols discussed the undesirability of pre-emptive signals.
After meeting with the County Disaster Force, it is clear that a
hookup with Conrail 's voice signal system would cost only $2500.
The FCC must approve. With pre-emptive signals, grade crossings would
be categorized as "unprotected"; with such a designation train would
be required to come to full stop before proceeding.
7. Adjournment.