pages: PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf, 14
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2005-02-28 | 14 | Ms. Shelley Dunn, 1322 Regent Street, noted that she was not opposed to the presence of the hospital, but was concerned about parking and dog urine on her lawn. She noted that the urine may not be the responsibility of the hospital staff. She inquired what would happen to the cars current renting space on that site. Ms. Kate Pryor, 2063 Eagle Avenue, spoke in support of this application. She noted that she was a business owner, and believed that the mixed use made the district more vibrant. Ms. Nancy Matthews, 2450 Central Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item, and expressed concern about the impact of this use on the residences. She described the traffic flow in the neighborhood, and expressed concern about the potential increase in traffic. She did not believe that customers of the clinic should be able to urge approval of a project they did not have to live with. Mr. Tom Matthews, 2450 Central Avenue, spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that 50 local residents were also opposed to this application. He doubted that the merchants on Park Street would allow this use. He did not believe this building had any residential character, and that the expansion was too large for the area. He believed a condition should be added that would require pets to be walked in the commercial zones only, and that the use to limited to care of sick pets only, with no boarding. He believed the setback was inadequate, with a one-foot setback from Central Avenue; he believed the small setback made it incompatible with the rest of the neighborhood. He would like to see architectural changes that would be more compatible with the transitional residential part of the neighborhood. Mr. Joe Meylor, 1361 Regent Street, spoke in opposition to all facets of this project, including the use, the design and the Variance because the use fundamentally changed the business model of the business. He noted that a small business would become a larger, wider-ranging facility with many more uses. He noted that dogs urinated on his private property, which was impossible to clean up. He stressed that he harbored no ill will toward the applicants, and added that his two cats had received excellent care at the clinic for the last five years. He understood that he lived in a transitional neighborhood, but asked that the Planning Board ensured that the residential voice was heard. He expressed concern about the noise impacts from the use. He noted that the applicants had misinterpreted his concerns incorrectly following their meeting. Ms. Monica Peña, 1361 Regent Street, spoke in opposition to this application, and believed it would negatively impact her quiet enjoyment of her property. She expressed concern that the dogs being walked in her neighborhood would pose a safety threat to her children. Mr. John Gruntfest noted that he did not live in the subject neighborhood, and spoke in support of this application. He noted that all residents had to make compromises. He noted that he was the CFO of San Francisco Veterinary Specialists, and been in the veterinary business for 20 years; there were no communicable diseases between animals and people through urine or feces. He had visited the neighborhood, and believed that the business was very orderly and well-kept; the improved facility Planning Board Minutes Page 14 February 28, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf |