01/27/1987 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

J ?.. • `, PLANNING COMMISSION JANLTARY 27, 1987 . PAGE 3 one 500 watt bulb which illuminates the sign, and if more lights are installed they will be directed on to their own property; no dumpster or screening for dumpster is shown on plan, but they will screen; they will either construct a fence or nlant trees on property line adjacent to residences when it is determined what the neighbors prefer. He believes that tfiere will be less traffic problems with this operation than with a p arty center since customers now arrive and leave at different times. Mr. Gorris questioned if this business could survive if seating has to be reduced to eonform to parking requirements, point- ing out that more spaces could be lost when required green area is included. Mr. Braun stated that they were considering putting in more trees along Hickory Lane. In reference to the lights, Mr. Spino stated that there had been complaints on the light on the sign and that there were lights on the rear of the building. At this point Assistant Law Director Dubelko explained that the city had filed an injunction against the developer because of zoning code violations. An agreement was worked out whereby tfie city would not go fozward with the restraining order with the provision that the developer would place his plans on this agenda.and that, if the neighbors and Flanning Commission agreed, that the developer would construct an 8' board on board fence adjacent to the residential.property prior to a February 4th court date and that paving will be completed by June lst. He believes that the developer is co-operating and has taken the first step to protect the neighbors from his business. Mr. Dubelko clarified that, even though this is a retaiT use, it is a change of use and once a change of use occurs which effects the parking requirements, then the parking, buffering,. landscaping, lighting, and retention must be approved by the city. Mr. Braun pointed out that plans were completed on December 12th, prior to the injunction, and a seating arrangement was presented on January 20th and that there appeared to be some disagreement within the eity as to what was required. They intend to co-operate and are attempting to get estimates on a fence. Mr. Godfray, Vice President of Timlier Trails Homeowners Assoeiation, presented photographs of this establishment taken in the fall and since it has opened. They are mainly concemed with code violations on the outside, not the internal renovations, requesting that the city enforee codes pertaining to barriers, paved parking, dumpster screening, drainage, lighting,and noise, pointing out that they do h ave a noise prob lem. Because of the grad'e of the property, they are requesting at least a 6 foot high fence on the rear lot line and also along the side line (adjacent to Hiekory Lane) to the rear of the building since one of the customers drove out onto flickory Lane damaging property of one of the residents. They are requesting that customers be prohibited from parking on the gravel until the fence is installed; that a reasonable schedule be established for paving; and that all existing code violations be corrected, pointing out that these plans are still incomplete. Mr. Dubelko stated parking in b ack can be prohibited until fence is installed. Mr. Maximuke, 30817 Old Shore (abutting parking lot), disputed statements made by Mr. Braun: they hear the throb of the bass of the music, previously heard music when doors were left open; can hear noise of cars when they get stuck in unpaved area; parking attendants do not seem to be present when club closes; light on sign shines into homes (C.E.I. lights on property, but not used now, did not cause problems).; must be more than 100-150