32A_156B 5 Bridge Street PlanningCity of Northampton, Massachusetts
Office of Planning and Development
City Hall • 21 Q Main Street
Northampton, MA 01060 • (413) 586-6950
FAX (413) 586-3726
• Conservation Commission • Historical Commission
• Housing Partnership • Parking Commission
• Planning Board • Zoning Board of Appeals
DECISION OF
NORTHAMPTON PLANNING BOARD
APPLICANT: Steve Ozcelik and Nuray Ozcelik
ADDRESS: 5 Bridge Street
Northampton, MA 01060
OWNER: Joyce August
ADDRESS: 50 Wilson Road
Northampton, MA 01060
RE LAND OR BUILDINGS IN NORTHAMPTON AT: 5 Bridge Street
MAP Arm PARCEL NUMBERS: MAP #32A PARCEL 156
At a meeting conducted on February 27, 1997, the Northampton
Planning Board voted 5:1 (with Kenneth Jodrie voting in
opposition) to grant the request of Steve Ozcelik and Nuray
Ozcelik for a SITE PLAN SPECIAL PERMIT under the provisions of
Section 10.10 and 10.11 of the Northampton Zoning Ordinance, to
convert a cellar to a finished basement for a lounge at 5 Bridge
Street, and known as Assessor's Map #32A, Parcel 156.
Planning Board Members present and voting were: Chair Andrew J.
Crystal, Jody Blatt, Kenneth Jodrie, Anne Romano and Associate
Members Paul Diemand and Richard Marquis.
In Granting the Site Plan Special Permit, the Planning Board
found:
A. The requested use protects adjoining premises against
seriously detrimental uses.
B. The requested use will promote the convenience and safety of
vehicular and pedestrian movement within the site and on
adjacent streets, and minimize traffic impacts on the
streets and roads in the area. The applicant has provided
sufficient parking, as depicted on plans and information
submitted with the application. The applicant has also
provided landscaping to visually separate the parking area
from the sidewalk.
ORIGINAL PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
C. The requested use will promote a harmonious relationship of
structures and open spaces to existing buildings and the
natural landscape because the applicant will install
additional landscaping to enhance the natural landscape;
otherwise, the exterior of the building will not change.
D. The requested use will not overload the City's resources,
including the City's water supply and distribution system,
sanitary and storm sewage collection and treatment systems,
fire protection, streets and schools.
E. The requested use meets the Site Plan Approval requirements
set forth in Section 10.11(6) of the Zoning Ordinance.
F. The requested use bears a positive relationship to the
public convenience or welfare by providing a place for
restaurant patrons to wait to be seated. The use will not
unduly impair the integrity of character of the district or
adjoining zones, nor be detrimental to the health, morals,
or general welfare. The use shall be in harmony with the
general purpose and intent of the Ordinance.
G. The requested use will promote City planning objectives to
the extent possible.
SITE PLAN APPROVAL CRITERIA
SECTION 10.11 (6)
In reviewing the Site Plan, the Planning Board Found:
F. The applicant has complied with the technical performance
standards as follows:
(1) The requested use will use an existing curb cut.
(2) Pedestrian and vehicular traffic has been separated to
the extent possible by the use of landscaping to
visually separate the parking area and sidewalk.
The following conditions were imposed upon the project:
1. The applicant shall submit a revised plan drawn to a
scale of in = 40, including the layout of parking
spaces, back-up space and property lines. The plan
shall be reviewed and approved by staff of the Planning
Board and a Planning Board member and shall be
submitted to the Office of Planning & Development to
become a permanent part of the file.
Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws (MGL), Chapter 40A,
Section 11, no Special Permit, or any extension, modification or
renewal thereof, shall take effect until a copy of the decision
bearing the certification of the City Clerk that twenty days have
elapsed after the decision has been filed, or if such an appeal
has been filed that it has been dismissed or denied, is recorded
in the Hampshire County registry of Deeds or Land Court, as
applicable and indexed under the name of the owner of record or
is recorded and noted on the owner's certificate of title. The
fee for such recording or registering shall be paid by the owner
or applicant. It is the owner or applicant's responsibility to
pick up the certified decision from the City Clerk and record it
at the Registry of Deeds.
The Northampton Planning Board hereby certifies that a Site Plan
Special Permit has been GRANTED and that copies of this decision
and all plans referred to in it have been filed with the Planning
Board and the City Clerk.
Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A, Section 15,
notice is hereby given that this decision is filed with the
Northampton City Clerk on the date below.
If anyone wishes to appeal this action, an appeal must be filed
pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 17, with the Hampshire
County Superior Court and notice of said appeal filed with the
City Clerk within twenty days (20) of the date of that this
decision was filed with the City Clerk.
Applicant: Martini's Restaurant - 5 Bridge Street
DECISION DATE: February 27, 1997
DECISION FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: March 20, 1997
U
City of Northampton, Massachusetts
Office of Planning and Development
City Hall • 210 Main Street
Northampton, MA 01060 • (413) 586-6950
FAX (413) 586-3726
• Conservation Commission • Historical Commission
• Housing Partnership • Parking Commission
• Planning Board • Zoning Board of Appeals
Northampton Planning Board
Minutes of Meeting
February 27, 1997
The Northampton Planning Board held a meeting on Thursday, February
27, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Wallace J. Puchalski
Municipal Building, 212 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts.
Present were Members: Chair Andrew J. Crystal, Jody Blatt, Kenneth
Jodrie, Anne Romano and Associate Members Paul Diemand and Richard
Marquis.
Staff: Senior Planner Paulette Kuzdeba and Board Secretary Laura
Krutzler.
At 7:06 p.m., Crystal opened the meeting.
At 7:15 p.m., Crystal opened the Public Hearing on a request from
Elliott Marsh, on behalf of Martini's Restaurant for a Site Plan -
Special Permit to convert a cellar to a finished basement for a
lounge under §10.10 and §10.11 of the Zoning Ordinance, for
property located at 5 Bridge Street, and known as Assessor's Map
#32A Parcel #156.
Crystal read the legal notice and explained the procedure he would
use in conducting the hearing.
Marsh presented the application, accompanied by Martini's
Restaurant owner Steve Ozcelik.
The Ozceliks would like to finish the basement to serve as a lounge
for customers waiting to be seated in the restaurant, Marsh
explained. The building inspector has approved the layout of the
lounge.
Kuzdeba explained that Site Plan review is necessary because the
applicant seeks to convert formerly unused cellar space. When
converting previously unused space, an applicant is required to
meet parking requirements just as if he were putting on an
1
ORIGINAL PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
addition. The present use of the building as a restaurant requires
twenty-one parking spaces, and the addition of seating in the
basement lounge area triggered the need for eleven more parking
spaces. Even though sufficient parking exists on site, the project
still requires site plan review.
In the zoning ordinance, a basement is defined as being less than
one-third below grade, while a cellar is defined as at least half
or entirely below grade. While a basement is considered usable
space, a cellar is not, Kuzdeba elaborated.
No additional off-street parking spaces are required if a proposed
use does not increase the total floor area within a building.
However, cellars, unenclosed porches and attics are not included in
the definition of "total floor area.',
Crystal said the distinction between cellars and basements should
be reviewed, since it does not make sense to distinguish between
the two.
Some members expressed the opinion that an applicant should not be
required to submit a site plan if sufficient parking is already
available on site for the proposed use. However, Feiden explained
that the number of required parking spaces is simply a convenient
threshold to insure projects of a certain size receive site plan
review. The review process allows Planning Board members to look
at landscaping, drainage, and other aspects of the project, Kuzdeba
added.
Crystal asked if anyone wished to speak in favor of the
application?
Abraham Zager of 15 Hawley Street asked whether the lounge would
have entertainment? There were problems with TJ's, Zager said.
Ozcelik said he did not intend to have entertainment. He obtained
a license to allow entertainment two years ago but never used it.
Zager asked whether entertainment would be allowed if the building
were sold?
The use is allowed in the CB District, Crystal said. However, if
the building's use were changed to a nightclub/dance hall, this
would require a Special Permit from the Planning Board, and the
Board would hold a public hearing, Kuzdeba pointed out. The use
would also require a change in the type of entertainment license.
Zager asked about the expansion of the business next door?
Kuzdeba said this expansion also requires site plan approval,
although a building permit was issued in error due to an oversight
in the building review process. The owner will be required to
2
submit an application for a Special Permit because the addition is
less than thirty feet in height.
Crystal asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor or in
opposition? No one spoke.
Members asked questions to clarify the information which had been
presented. Ozcelik confirmed that, although the lounge is intended
as waiting space, it will also serve people other than restaurant
patrons.
Romano asked whether people would be allowed to smoke in the
lounge? The Building Inspector will review whether the proposed
use meets the requirements of the smoking ordinance, Crystal noted.
Site Inspector Blatt commented that the submitted plan does not
match the existing conditions on site. The plan shows a different
number of parking spaces than actually exist on the ground. Jodrie
also expressed dissatisfaction with the plan, saying that it was
not to scale and did not accurately depict circulation.
Marsh said the drawing is to scale, since it is a tracing of a DPW
plan.
With the eleven new required spaces, a total of thirty parking
spaces are now required, Marsh clarified. Members said that they
were confident that sufficient room for the parking spaces existed
on site; however, they would like the applicant to submit a revised
plan which accurately shows the existing spaces.
After discussion, Board members directed the applicant to prepare
a plan drawn to a scale of 1" = 40' which shows the layout of
parking spaces, together with back-up space and property lines.
Jodrie said he thought the Board should establish minimum standards
for plans which accompany Special Permit applications.
Members discussed whether to continue the public hearing or approve
the Site Plan contingent upon the applicant submitting a revised
plan drawn to scale.
Blatt said she would also like to see some landscaping to mark the
boundary between the sidewalk and the parking lot, since there is
no bump or berm between the two. Board members discussed whether
to make this a requirement of approval. Ozcelik pointed out that
he has already enhanced the area with the installation of a patio
and landscaping. Also, the concrete sidewalk is light-colored
while the parking area is dark colored, Marsh said.
Crystal pointed out that, under site plan review, the Board has the
right to require additional landscaping. Ozcelik promised to
provide "lots of green and lots of flowers.,,
3
Members discussed whether to require the applicant to submit the
revised plan for the review of the entire Board or whether to allow
Kuzdeba to review the revised plan. Romano suggested granting the
permit contingent upon the approval of the plan by one member of
the Board, and Marquis agreed. Jodrie said he would not be willing
to review the revised plan, since he told the applicant the Sunday
before the hearing that the submitted plan was not acceptable.
The adjacent property owner does not have an easement allowing
access to the lot, Ozcelik said, in response to a question from
Crystal.
The Department of Public Works (DPW) had no concerns, Crystal
noted.
Romano moved to close the Public Hearing. Blatt seconded the
motion. The motion passed unanimously 6:0.
Members discussed possible conditions. All members except Jodrie
agreed they would be comfortable requiring the applicant to submit
a revised plan for review by staff. Jodrie said he would prefer
continuing the hearing for two weeks to. allow the applicant to
submit a revised plan to the entire board.
Jodrie said he would also like to establish a mechanism to insure
that, in the future, site plans meet certain standards. Crystal
agreed that plans should be screened and kept off the agenda if
they are not acceptable.
Romano moved to approve the Site Plan Special Permit to convert a
cellar to a finished basement for a lounge under Sections 10.10 and
10.11 of the Zoning Ordinance because the application meets the
criteria with the following condition:
1. The applicant shall submit plans in accordance with the
requirements discussed for approval by staff of the
Planning Board.
Marquis seconded the motion.
Diemand suggested amending the motion to allow review to be by
staff and a member of the Planning Board.
Romano accepted the amendment. Diemand and Romano both said they
would be available to review the plan.
Marsh clarified that the plan must be a scale drawing showing
property lines and parking spaces drawn to scale and showing
existing green space and landscaping to delineate the parking lot
from the sidewalk.
The motion passed 5:1 with Jodrie voting in opposition.
0
1. Applicant's Name: _ 7 .L tilt IZI�If� �� J L uzc TT
Address: 7 k�1'�
!✓� ' 'T 6, �- Telephone:
2. Parcel Identification: Zoning Map # Parcel #_ Zoning District:
Street Address:_ r g /' , L, (_ s: 1c 7
3. Status of Applicant: Owner-, Contract Purchaser; ✓ Lessee
Other (explain)
4. Property Owner: c
Address: / C N Telephone:
J
5• Describe Proposed Work/Project (Use additional sheets if necessary):
�IZ�s
T
********************************************************************************************
Has the following information been 'included in the application?
Site/Plot Plan V List of requested waivers fee
2 sets of labels (supplied by the Assessor's Office)
Signed dated and denied Zoning Permit Application
Three (3) copies of the Certified Abutters List from Assessors' Office.
1
File No. 4�1-2'60
ZONING PERMIT ,APPLIC`ATxoN (§10.2)
PLEASE TYPjE, OR PRINT ALL nlFORl�aTION
1. Name of Applicant: 2' tl /i(. L)
Address:/dQ /j,[`r, of u) jam! I . Lyd L hone: Tele
P -�S`0 2
2. Owner of Property. t
Address:
Telephone: S ��� l! P7
3. Status of Applicant: Owner
Contract Purchaser essee
Other (explain):
4. Job Location: _ $fiA S 7.( Ca2r -t,�&a t
Parcel Id: Zoning Map# Parcel#
(TO BE FILLED IN BY THE BUILDING D PARTMENT)
5. Existing Use of Structure/Property_
6. Description of Proposed Use/Work/Project/Occupation: (Use additional sheets if necessary):
/ eti
7. Attached Plans: Sketch Plan � �
!! Site Plan Engineered/Surveyed Plans
Answers to the following 2 questions may be obtained by checking with the Building Dept or Planning Department Files.
8. Has a Special �permladance/Finding ever been issued for/on the site?
NO
DON'T KNOW
YES_ IF YES, date issued:
IF YES: Was the permit recorded at the Registry of Deeds?
NO DON'T KNOW
YES
IF YES: enter Book ^--
Page and/or DDocument #
9. Does the site contain a brook, body of water or wetlands? NO l/
DONT KNOW_ YES
IF YES, has a permit been or need to be obtained from the Conservation Commission?
Needs to be obtained Obtained
date issued:
(FORM CONTINUES ON OTHER SIDE)
8. Site Plan and Special Permit Approval Criteria. (If any permit criteria does not apply, explain why)
Use additional sheets if necessary.
Assistance for completing this information is available through the Office of Planning & Development.
A. How will the requested use protect adjoining premises against seriously detrimental uses?
How will the project provide for:
surface water drainage: .,"' I I .
sound and sight buffers:
the preservation of views, light and air. ,i.
B. How will the requested use promote the convenience and safety of pedestrian movement within the site and on
adjacent streets?
How will the project min�e traffic impacts on the streets and roads in the area?
Where is the location of driveway openings in relation to traffic and adjacent streets?
1> > i /
What features have been incorporated into the design to allow for:
access by emergency vehicles:
the safe and convenient arrangement of parking and loading spaces:
Provisions for persons with disabilities: "A a . ; f,:-- ' j
ECE ft&s
2
' FEB 10 1997
C. How will the proposed use promote a harmonious relationship of structures and open spaces to:
the natural landscape:
to existing buildings:
other community assets in the area:
D. What measures are being taken that show the use will not overload the City's resources, including:
water supply and distribution system:_
sanitary sewage and storm water collection and treatment systems:_ y'
fire protection, streets and schools:
How will the proposed project mitigate any adverse impacts on the City's resources, as listed
above? t ;
E. List the section(s) of the Zoning Ordinance that states what special regulations are required for the proposed
project (flag lot, common drive, lot size averaging, etc.)
How does the project meet the special requirements? (Use additional sheets if necessary)?
F. State how the project meets the following technical performance standards:
Curb cuts are minimized:_ /i -- i „- j,v
/ECEIVF0
FEB 10 1997
3