HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes
April 21, 1983
AGENDA ITEM NO.4: 83-702: A public hearing on the question of granting a Conditional
Use Permit fora church to be located btttw~.en Arizona and Phoenix Streets, on 10
and 3 a.lock 2 McCullou h Addition. A licatlon is in the name of ChristHol
Baptist Church The Rev. M. E.Wells ·
Mr. Mayo located the lots on a map and explained the proposed site plan for a church. He
further explained that the applicant is requesting a vartanceto an additional fire hydrant,
which the Fire Harshalopposes. The FlreMarshal has lndicatedthata.n additional fire
hydrant, bringing all parts of the proposed building within 300 ft. of the h~dran~, will
be required. Public hearing was opened. The Rev. Wells came forward and said this church
would not bother anyone in the neighborhood and would only be for the benefit of humanity.
Opponents were called and Ruby Thomas came forward to express opposition to a church in
the neighborhood citing parking on the street and disturbances created in the neighborhood
as her reasons. She . presented a petition from the neighbors who.>opposeth i s church. Mr.
Kelly asked whether parking on the street or disturbance in theneighb.~rhood was her
main concern and she answered that bothprob 1 ems concerned her ,:andfur'ther feels this
church isan intruslonlntoher privacy. Noone else spoke. Public hearing was closed.
The Chair called for a show of hands from the audience indicating how many people repre-
sented those for, and th~n those against this request.
Mr. Miller asked staff about parking requirements and Mr. Mayo indicated that I space per
5 seats plus one space for each employee are required, therefore the 23 spaces provided
would allow a maximum of 110. seats in the structure. Mr. Hill asked if other churches
normally minimally meet the ordinance requJrementsand Mr. Mayo replied that generally
that is the case, and many churches do have spill-over parking onto the neighborhood
streets. Mr. Hill asked Mr. Mayo to. locate other churches in the immediate'areaand Mr.
Mayo did. Further discussion followed concerning the proposed splIt type parking lot,
the apparent lack of landscaping, signs, exterior lighting, choice of location for.. the
church, number of members and attendance at services, width of street right-of-way, lack
of curbing on this street and how the petitioners' signatures related to the Jand. The
Rev. Wells spokeagaJn, saying that if there was a sign, it would be on. the structure,
that. the exterior lights would be regular floodlights,..and that the choice of land was
due to availability and expense. Mr. Hill asked if streets could be IlsignedU for noparkinl
and Mr . Mayo i ndicated thee ity Manager could do thi s . Mr. Hall asked about pl ans. for
future expansion and The Rev. Wellsansweredifit became necessary, the congregation
could perhaps purchase 2 adjacent vacant lots or move the church toamore desirable 10ca-
t i on. The Commiss ion suggested the site .pl an be changed so the church would bel ocated
on a different lot. Mr. Hall then made a motion to deny this request because the site
is too small for the project as designed and the possibility of causing traffic congestion
on an already inadequate street. This motion died for lack of'a second.
Hr. Hill then made a motion totable this request. Mr. Kelly seconded the motion. Mr.
Miller commented concerning what he believed to be a better site plan and stated he is
primarily conce,rnedwith traffic on Arlzona Street. Discussion followed concerning church
membership being withinwalking-dlstance,thepurchaseby the church ofaddit.ional lots
prior to coming back before the Commission. Mr. Hill thenexplalned to the applicant
that there will be 3 new members on the Commission the next time this item is heard.
Votes were cast, and motion totable carrled4-1 with Mr. Hall voting against,preferring
denial of the request. AppLicant was advised this item would be heard at the next meeting
(5..5-83), and that he should present staff with a revised site plan to review prior to that
t l me .
MayS, 1983
AGENDA IlEMMO. 3: 81-70Z: Reconsiderationofthe9uestionof Qrantin9 a Conditional Use
Permit fora church to be located between. Arizona and Phoenix Streets, on Lots 10,11,
and 34 Block 2 HctullouhAdditlon. A licatlon islra the name of. ChristHol Missionar
Sap t i st Church The Rev. M. E . Wells . ·
Mr. Hill gave background of this request, stating that this item had been tabled at the
last PSI meeting with the request that the applicant have a revised site plan to present
onth is date and expressed hope that all new Comnlss ionershad ga i ned suffi c i ent backgroun(
on this request to take part in this hearing. He then invited one spokesman for the pro-
ponents of the request to come forward and explain the request. Mr. Kelly moved to take thi
item.off the table. Mr. Mil1erseconded.M()~i<?l1<:arried unanimously (7-0).
The Rev. M. E.Wellscame forward to speakbrleflyexplaining that an attempt had been mad:e
to revise the site plan, but,each revisioncrea.ted the need for a var.iance request, there-
fore;//i/~~t.'-,-*~~:~s;ame sHe plan for consideratioA which had been considered at
the last'! ,._'~'.. ........ ",~~t~~he only reason forestabl ishiog a church in this neighborhood
was toseFve ~q~comntuekt" and to help people straighten out their lives. He described
the ex terJ'or.o'fi,,2>tthe;i .,' c.ffiu'ref:r. they a re planning.
Mr. Hanseri'asked'abQut>B~~seating capacity of the proposed structure, and the Rev. Wells
answered that attendance at gatherings varied from 70 to 105 and. that parking was being
pro.vided forl05 seats. Mr. Kelly asked if anychang.esat all were being proposed since
the last meeting to which Mr. Wells replied that there are no changes.
)
Mr. Hill then invited a spokesman for the opponents of this proposed church to come forwarc
and Mr. Tyree Thomas came forward and repeated many of the problems mentioned at the pre-
vious. meeting wh ich included traffic hazards, disturbances in the neighborhood,poss ib le
parking problems and suggested that if a church is needed, it should go on a different
site because thlsnelg,hborhoodis too tight for a church. Mr. Hill asked if many' resident~
now park on the street In the evening and Mr. Thomas replied that some people have on-site
parking atthehomes,but some have to park on the street which is too narrow for any
additionalparkrng. Mt.Ma.rtyn spoke of the sIgnatures on the petition and asked thenumbE
of people who had sIgned it. (The petition had not been Included in packets,-for the
Commissioners). Mr. Kelly asked if Mr. Thomas is aware that 23 parking spaees on-site are
being provided andM-r..Thomas said he understands that from th is nightl s,dl~c'tlssloA:~ Hr.
Kelly then explalned the proposed parkIng lots. Mr. Thomas said he d idn'tseehow;the,num~
ber of cars could be limited to only 23. Mr. BaTley asked how far Mr. Thomas.:I.p.roperty
is from this proposed site and Mr. Thomas replied he lives right across ttje.~~r$et:.:Mr.
Hi 11 then explained the Ordinance requirements wh ieh must be met before the.l's.so;s.n:c:e: of
a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Martyn asked about theflre hydr.ant which would:be:required,
and who would be.responslbleforthecost of. that. He was told the applicant would be
requlredto bear the cost of an additional hydrant. Mr. Miller expressed concern over the
spl it park i ng lot and reiterated hi sdes i.re that the build ingbe sh i fted to cause access
to one street to be cutoff. Mr. Hill asked about parking lot standards and Mr. Mayo
said that the ordinance requIres one space per 5 seats, and if too many seats are in the
building, the Certificate of Occupancy can be held up. Mr. Hansen referred to any possible
future expansion which had been mentioned previously, and stated that wou ldrequ ire even'
more parking.
Mr. Bai ley said that a sJteplan must' stand on its own merits, and he does not thinks this
one does; that there are a large number of churches already ina very small area; that the
P.R.C. recommendations have not been met; therefore, he opposes this request, and then
made a motion to denythls conditional use permit. Mr. Kelly seconded the motion.
Mr.. Kaiserasked'abotl'tan'l o:ther churches in the area and Mr. Mayo pointed them out on a
map (3). Mr. MI:<11ersald"tnere is no time 1 imit for re-appllcation should this request
be denied. Votes.wereicast,and the. request for the conditional use permit for a church
at this sIte was-denied unanimously (Z-O).
)
The Rev. Wells came forward again and said the church is not going to give up, and asked
if the permit would be approved if certain changes 1n the site plan were made. Mr. Hill
informedhlm it would be impossible to give anoplnlonwithout actually seeing a site plan,
but ca.utioned that the parkIng problem ,would still remain in that area due to the street
sizes. Mr. Wells s.ald that Mr. Bailey had said one reason he was against this project
was because the.P.R.C. recommendations had not been met, and informed the Commission that
these recommendations had all been met,. and Mr. Mayo agreed that they had beenr. Mr. Hill
then po i-nted out that t1r. Sa i ley hadpolnbedout other prob 1 ems as well.
SC?meonefrgm the audience ?poke up and~<:lid hel 'yes in the nei~~?<:>rryood and is a-member. 9f
this Cf'l~~~j<ii1;.,';'_eople in the church cool€) wall<. to Clitiu-'''cfil and thinks the parkir
require_~I').>._..><:'L:net. . Mr. Hill said that should this issue come before the
CQmmlssJ."o~"aa~kt~:<: .t:s;.'-nS,lftcAm,;" ~bOljld.,sn~ak. .,at th~~lJ_~..~l~ 1ft: E~.r,' ~,.'.."'1_~
5-3-84
AGENDA ITEM NO, 7: 84-70.8: A pwblic hearing on the question of granting a Conditional
Use Permitfor.es.tabllshlng a church on Lots 34,10. & 11 Block 2 McCul10ck Addition
Suhdivi'sion (10catedbetween Arizona & Phqenlx Streets). Application is in the name of
Christ H01y.Misslonary Baptist 'Church.
Mr. Callaway explained that t.hisrequest and si te plan arevlrtua 11 ythe same as the one
this Commission deni"ed.approxlmately one year ago,alsostatJng that the P.R.C. require-
ments have all been met, but pointed out that although Conditional Uses of this type are
cons.idered appropriate in residential, or any zonIng districts if the Commission considers
allrequirementshavebete>rt:mE!'t,. previous Commission concerns with thIs site plan/use permit
have stIll 'not beenadclressed,those belngthe lack of on-site circulation and the neigh-
borhood street condltions:'and how th'rough traffic might be affected should there be over-
flow, off-site parking. The staff report in the packet addresses street capacity, and
reports that Uanyon-stree.t parking would not allow for the requi red 20ft . pavement for
passage ofemergen,c:y veh,lcles." Mr. Hill askedifthls was in the P.R.C. report. Mr.
Callaway replied.thatit is in the staff report, but not Inthe P.R.C. report. Mr. Martyn
asked if there had been any changes from a year ~go,to which Mr. Callaway repl ied there
had not. The publlc hearing was opened.
:)
Tyree Thomas, a nearby property owner came forward to speak in opposition saying the streets
are currently very tight and spoke of other churches in the neighborhood and the overflow
parking which is already occuring. He referred toapossiblesafetyhazard to older people
in the neighborhood due to crowded streets. Mr. Kelly asked tlr. Thomas if he ever parks
on the street and Mr. ThomasansweretJthat sometimes it becomes necessary. Mr. Kelly
replied that Mr. Thomas is then also~contributing to a problem, as do other,families in
the area.
.,
.
I
Wi 11ieStr~~~i".)a deacGnof the church came forwardandstated~,~~t this church in the
ne i ghbortl()(tli;~;,c~,,~-b~~;Jt, the>tle ighborhoodand wi 11 not hw~tanyone. Mr. Mill er
asked Mr.,St'i:'~'fl~~ "'he;,:, . >s and he repl i ed . that he Ilves~ on:t\ichards Street.
Willie Pharmscame forward, stated she lives close to 2 different churches and there does
not seem to be a problemwlth parking there, and she is in favor of this church. No one
else spoke. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Hill asked Mr. Callaway what percentage
of property owners live in the hous,esand how many arerentals,and after checking, Mr.
Callaway reported that 12 of the. 29 notices were sent outside of the immediate neighbor-
hood. Mr. MartynsaldthatlnthepasttheCommissionwasnot concerned about placing
a church in this residential area, but had been c,oncerned with safety factors due to
added trafficandon-streetparkJ n9 .at this part i,cular location, and th is has not changed.
He stated also that In the past the meetings were to be scheduled. more tha.n, one time a
week, and this also, has not changed, and if the Commission had been concerne~d about these
things a year ago, .it should stJ 11 be concerned about them tonight.
Bonnie Downs, arcnltect for the proposed project came forward to address what had been
done.to changetheslteplan,and reported that some things had not been ch~nged due to
drainage problems in that area.
Mr. Martyn made a motion to deny thi.s Conditional Use Permit and site plan. Mr. Kaiser
seconded the motion. Mr. Martyn said he was making this motion because of the same rea-
sons as l~styear, and no. significant changes had occurredln the neighborhood since that
time.. Mr. Kaiser added that staff had poirltedout thepotentialprob 1 em wi thgett i ng
emergency vehicles throu,gh should on-street parking occur ,therefore creating a possible
harm to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood. Votes were cast with the
motlonto deny carrytngunanimously(6-o.l. -
~.
Mr .Calla.'1ay.bontinuedhis explanation of this request. by briefly explaining that two
previ()us requests for useperJDitstoallowthedevelopment of this church at this
locationha.vebe~ndenied; one in May, 1983 and one in May 1984 and referred to the
minutes of those meetings which were included in the Commissioners' packets. He
stated.~dditionally that the proJ.)osedsiteplan was reviewed by the Project Review
Committee<on October 1st and the resulting report recommends approval.with 8
conditions. Hetllen pointed out that the proposal and request are essentially the
same as Were · considered by the Commission in May of 1984 with exception of the size
of the building which has been reduced. He finalized by stating that one of the
previous concerns regarding street width will be addressed by the current
reconstruGtion and widening of Phoenix and Arizona Streets, but another concern
regarding. lack of circulation between parking.lots has not been addressed by this
proposal and remains virtually the . Same as the previous proposal. (Mr. Stewart arrived
at the meeting shortly after Mr. Callaway began his explanation.)
After brief discussion by the Commissioners and Mr. Callaway as to what was addressed
by the P.R.C. and what was not, the public hearing was opened.
Florence Caldwell with the Girls' Club at the Community House came forward to speak
in favor.of tllisproject, stating that although she is not a resident of the
neighborhood,having thesechu.rch members use her building throughout the week for
meetings has been a pleasure and she would like to see a permanent location in this
neighborhood established forthi$ GhurGh, adding she Gould see no way. this church
could.. be. detrimental... to the neighborhood.
Minnie Campbell, Treasurer of the church came forward to speak in favor of the
request, stating that this proposal meets all city cOderequirements'and almost all
the members of this church now live in this neighborhood and would walk to the
meetings, therefore parking would not be a problem.
Mr. MacGilvray asked both previous speakers if they live in the neighborhood and both
answered in the affirmative.
Ruby Thomas, owner of 3 lots in fr()ntof the subject property came foward to speak in
opposition to this request and readiapetition so stating which she said had been
signed byown~rs. of lots within 200 feet of the subject tracts.
Mr. Stewart asked her what the specific objections to this request Br.e and Mrs.
Thomas said the first concern is regarding parking on the streets which would make
ingress and egress from her lots difficult if not impossible. Mr. MacGilvray asked
if she lives in this neighborhood>andshe replied that she does not, but some day she
might be forGed to return to her house.there and she would not want a church right in
. front of her home. Mr. Stewart asked if renters of homes ha.d also signed the
petition and Mrs. Thomas replied that only owners of land are included on the
petition, but added that the people renting her house are against the request as
well. Mr. MacGilvray pointed out the criterifithe Commissioners must follow for
granting a Conditional Use Permit, but added that he is interested in the position of
the neighbors and owners of the lots in the area.
Billy Lyons, a member of the church came forward to speak in favor of the request and
stated that only about 3 or 4 of the owners of thelandand/or houses in the area
live within 200 . feet of. the subject tracts.
Barbara Davi$, a long time resident of the area and a meDlberof the church came
forward to speak in favor of the. request and stated that there has been nothing on
the property to date, so the church could never have caused a parking problem in the
P&ZMinutes
10--16-86
Page 2
approve this c9Ilcii t,i'()rl~~-'U.~~l?~mit;cf~r the -t'equest~d s igp.;Mr-.~Brochu-secondeduthe
motion. which carriedunanilRously (7~()}.
AGENDA ITEM NOH. 4. 86--216:
acres).
Plat- Emerald Park (4.59
Mr. MaYQ explain~d)th~~pl~t8Ildlocated thelfU1d, .addipgthatbasicallythis plat
representsdedicatedJ?~~klfU1dwhic;h is required by ordinance for. the sections of the
subdivision which have been platted to ..date. He added that he believes that this
.site has.beenapproy.edbytheCouncil.Hestated that staff recommends approval of
this plat, andreplie<iinanswer to a question that he is not aware of any plans for
development of this park at this time.
Mr. Brochu made amotion to approve the plat; Mr. stewart seconded the motion which
carried unanimously.....{7...-0).
,AGEND A I TEMNO.. 5. 86~'105:Reeonsiderationofthequestion 0 f
granting site.plall.ap1>rova.l f'orachurch. (ConditionalUsepermi t
granted on 1 ()-16e""$6)( to...~.~.. ..1o~ated()n.Lots .10,11 & .34. Block 2
Mceull ocbs ubd.i'Yi~~()Il<b~twe~JlPhoeJli]l( ..& Ar izoJla .. Streets) ·
Applicant . isthe<R~v.Bennett Blake. (Considerat:ion of sit.e plan
was tabled onl().-1'6-86J. '
Mr.MacGilvraymad~amot:Lonto remove this item from its tabled position. Mrs.
S.awtelle .second'edthemotion which carriedunaniinously {7-0). '
Mr. Callaway explained this revised site plan being considered at this. meeting
addresses the ..concernsvoiced .at the meeting of October meet ing ,and . added that Mr.
Mayo has one recommendation he would like to make.
Mr. Mayo explained that he would like the curbing around an. internal island
changed so it will notcre~te a"dead'lspa?e,a.dding that this change will make a
slight decrease iIlson~truction costs asw~lL.. Fred C. Benson, Engitect consulting
engineer came forward>and....stated thatchangew~uld be no problem and. his clients have
agreed to it.
Mr. Brochu made amot:i~rito<aPfJrove this site plan with the. condition that the
applicant makes therecomm~ndedchange ill the . curbing around the. internal island.
Mrs. Sawtelle seconded the motion which carri.ed unanimously (7-0) ·
AGENDA ..ITEMNO.6~ Other. business
Mr . Kaiser mentiQriedthememo fromCa,pital IDlprovements Director. Elrey Ash regarding
the continued tabling of th.e Fire Station #3 > and the additional studies which will be
done ,priortore<1tl~s;ting.reconsideration'oft.his item.. He commended the City staff
for addressing the Commission's concerns with the additional studies mentioned.
page '2
"""
Mr. MacGilvrayaskedlMr. Dresser if he was indicating that perhaps it would not be
des i reab Ie to link the 2 parking lots. Mr. Dresser replied that he does not think it
is a good idea to have a driveway which runs through from one street to another
becausetrafficgeneratedbythechurchwith.adriveway which would make direct
accessfromonestr~ettoanothermightbe~detrimental .. to the neighborhood ...even
though enough parking has been made available. He added that he does not think
parking itself would be detrimental to the neighborhood.
Mr. Dresser continued by stating that now this Commission must deal with whether or
not the activity of.a church would be detrimental to this neighborhood, .adding. that
Ilowthese lots are vacant and unkept, w4~ch in his opinion represent detriments to
the neighborhood,.8Ildhebelievesdevel()pmentof~ the lots into this proposed project
would bean enhancement rather thana detriment to the neighborhood, and that
bas~callyhe is in favor of this proposal.
Mr. MacGilvray st.atedthathe is hearing from the Commission a favorable indication
to the use, but a less favorable attitude to the site plan itself. Mr. Stewart
stated that although this plan is meeting the letter of the law regarding parking, he
would like to have more input regarding the possibility of changing the shape of the
building. .. Mrs . Sawtelle pointed out that the project includes moving anexis t ing
building to the sitewhichwouldprecludech~gingthe shape of the building., but
perhaps .it could be located in a different spot. .
Billy Lyons. was given p.ermission to .speakfrom~he audienc.e and stated. that the City
informed them that development of the lot would be safer this way, as there are small
children in the area. who would most likely play in this parking lot., and. through
traffic from one street to another would create a danger to these children.
Mr. ,Wendler made amotion to approve the request for a ConditionalUse.Permit only for
this church to be located on Lots lO,11&>34iBlock2 McCullough subdivision (thus
separating the approvaliofthe use. from site plan approval). Mrs. Sawtelle. seconded
the motion which carried unanimously (6-0}.
Mr. Callawaypointegout that tabling, rather than denying, the.site plan would allow
the church to revise the plan and bring it back without renotification,which would
include advertisingand.sendingout letters.
Mr. Wendler made amotion to table consideration of the site plan for the church on
this site. Mrs. Sawtelle seconded the motion.
Mr. Dresser said that in his opinion, it should be clarified as to just. exactly why
this site plan is being tabled. Mr. Brochu agreed, adding that he had concerns
earlier in the meeting regarding several things being proposed, but all questions he
had have been addressed and answered, and now thisConnnissionhas the responsibility
to give these people direction. Mr. MacGilvray stated that is a good point.
Mr. Dressersaidthat.ashesees this, there seem to be 2 choices: One being to have
a through driveway and the other to have no> through driveway. Mr. MacGilvray agreed,
adding that the dead end parking lot creates problems. Mr. Mayo stated that redesign
would probably result in a dead end parking lot anyway.
Votes were cast on)/themotionto table, with, the results being favorable (4-2) with
Mr. Brochu and.Mr..}Dresser .voting against the motion.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: 86-211:
Final Plat -Woodcreek Phase III.
(1'-
past. Sheaddedthp.ttherearemanyhigh ..scho()~l.ehildrenin~ the area . who are members
of this church, and. theY need the~~~tmceof tiji,t\l.churchto help them, therefore the
church should have itsbui lding in. the ...area.
Mr. Dres$ertt$kedifliPyof . the. people. onthe>})etitiQI)..liye....in the. neighborhood .now
and Mrs. Thomas named them. (Citytax.records.'spOVithat of the lLsigIlatures on the
petition, 6 actually live in the neighborhood; 261etterstopropertyoWIlers .were
sent.) Mr. Wendler asked Mrs.. Thomas if traffic is the only objection and Mrs.
Thomas replied that parking and traffic generated frpmnormaL functions. of. a church
were ...herconcerns.
Mr. MacGil-vrayaskedh()W lar~ea church this is and BillYJ,yons repliedtl1~r~are
about 30 adults and, 35 children/young peoplewhp aremembers~ Mr. .MacG~h':raff1Sked
when re~larmeetingsother than on Sunday would be held andMr.LyonsreP.~*rd~hat
there would bemeet;ingson Monday (l-1/2hr. ),Tuesday ( 1 hI' . )andWedne~~~Y1, p~ayer
meetings which would begin at 7 P.M. He added that the total nuntber of" c~l'sii~~ich
would be parking would only be about 10 as the rest of the members li.v~' i~'t:tie:area
and would walk.. to. the. services.
A unidentified church, member spoke from the.audiencestating .most..~bur-Jfie~:i,~Il...~ijis
town do not have.adequatepar-kil)g and membersbaye,to park on the~tr~~tM~.p~,on~
seems to be concerned abouttbem, and certainlytbis.cburcbwould have~O)ffl-~~~icar~
on tbe street than others... Mr... . MacGi 1 vray . e"p~ained · that . everyone ,. is'ra~~i'!~rithe
problemswitb otbercburcbesand the ordinancesbave cbanged recently~d,il1P:(>e'~\lP~
new churches in the area will bave adequate parking. . ... .
Noone else spoke. 'The public hearing was.. closed.
Mr. Stewart asked what the possibility would. be of flip-flopping the building, adding
that at previous meetings some of the Commissioner.s believed that would be a good
idea. He 'askediftbe.applic~thad been so advi~ed. Mr. Mayo addressed the idea
briefly, with Mr.. Callaway concluding by pointingouttbat; Jheprevious plan which
had been denied includ~d.a m\1ch larger buildiIlg,the~ocationof which could not be
cbangedtoanotberlot beca~esetbacks coul().nothave'beeI)met. Mr. Stewart said
that if the>parkinglotswefejoined, speed, bUJllps c()~ld b~ installed to slow down any
tbrough traffic. Mrs. Sawtelle pointed outtbatcol)I)ectingtbeparking lots would
precludecarsfrQmleavingone lot if it was full, driving on Holleman and around to
tbe other lot, tbus wOlHdhelp control a negativetr~ffic impact in the area..
Discussion followed as to whether or not a street 28 feet in widtbwas adequate for
parking on both sides and leaving only one lane of the street open to traffic. Mr.
Wendler explained that Blalleuver'ing could be done, and is done in many areas, but it
is tricky. Mr. Brochu asked if the streets could be signed for parking on one side
only.
Mr. MacGilvray askedwbattbemainobjections~ere at tbe. previous denial and Mr.
Mayo ~xplained that it seemed to be mainly opposition from the neighborhood, although
some concern. had been expressed about parking on the streets and general congestion
in the neighborhood. Mr. Mayo continued explaining that the proposed parking for
this ...project ..exceeds ordinance requirements.
Mr. Brochu stated at this time he is for the use being approved, but he believes the
site plan could be improved~1>on. Mr. Wen dl et agreed. Mr. Dresser stated there is a
good argument to be made for having no connection between the parking lots in this
type ofneighborhoQd. Mr. Mayo. stated that ,all the parking might be.put on one side,
and then perhapsparkingQnthestreet could also be limited to one side of the
street.
P&ZMinutes
10-16-86
Page 3