PC 022509 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Forbath stated her opinion that the State wants to keep uniformity throughout the State. She noted that If every city were to decide its own rules on whether or not a park could convert, some park residents would have the opportunity to purchase and others would not. Chair Pearce called for a break at 9:55 p.m. The Commission then reconvened the regular meeting at 10:06 p.m. Given the lateness of the hour, Chair Pearce asked the applicants for Item 6.b., PDR-804/PCUP-233, Hana Japan, if they were amenable to continuing their item to March 11, 2009. The applicants agreed to the continuation. Commissioner Pearce indicated that the March 11, 2009 meeting, which was canceled at an earlier meeting, will be held and that Item 6.b. on tonight’s agenda would be heard at that time. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Fox stated that the subdivision map showed that some of the current units are different than the actual proposed subdivision. She referred to Lot 192 and noted that the dividing line goes to the actual corner of a unit and that there is no setback. Mr. Dolan stated that there is narrow discretion by the Commission under State law relating to setbacks, and this served as an example. Mr. Roush explained that prior to the time the condominium plan is recorded, the applicant would ensure that the physical structures on the property would be within the proposed lot lines so they do not extend over the lines. He noted that it is possible the units could touch the lot line, but the normal setback provisions of a typical subdivision as well as other requirements do not come into play. Commissioner Fox clarified the location of the pond on the plan. She brought up the nursing home at 300 Neal Street as an example and stated that if it came to the Commission with a request to do something different than what is in effect today, it was her understanding that this would trigger the need for retrofit work in order to meet Americans with Disability Act (ADA) standards. She inquired who would be responsible for retrofitting all public facilities in the park to be ADA-compliant if it is converted to ownership. Mr. Roush replied that it is possible that certain retrofitting undertaken by the applicant might trigger the ADA requirements of the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), but he did not believe that the mere conversion would cause HCD to mandate an ADA retrofit. He noted that assuming HCD did require it or if the DRE indicated this would need to occur, the owner would be responsible for making those necessary retrofits. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, February 25, 2009 Page 23 of 29