Loading...
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.