Laserfiche WebLink
- .? <br />w <br />PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27, 1990 PAGE 2 <br />Chairman Thomas explained that this proposal was tabled since the plans <br />presented did nbt show r.tuch buffering or landscaping. Revised nlans have <br />been presented. Mr. Gavin, attorney, stated again that it was not feasible <br />economically to-use this lot residentially since it is substantially less <br />than the minimum width required for lots in this area; and also it abuts <br />two commercial par.cels, one of which belongs to Mr. Georgalis. It is his <br />intention to use this parcel for parking for the restaurant on his property. <br />14r. Gavin explained .that the new plans show three types of fencing; a con- <br />crete wa11; a board on board fence; or a chain link fence with slats and <br />he believed that the concrete wall would be best adjacent to the homes and <br />the board on board or chain link adjacent to the yard. It was determined <br />that the driveway was about 20 feet wide and would maintain two way traffic. <br />Mr. Thomas clarified that the Commission was not reviewing the plans at <br />this time, only the rezoning; the plans were requested only to show <br />approximately what this would look like. Because of the required 50 <br />foot buffer, Mr. Gavin claimed that no building could be built on this <br />lot. Mr. Betts pointed out that if the present restaurant were torn down, <br />a building could be constructed to within 3 feet of the property line. <br />In response to the Commission's questions., Mr. Georgalis advised that he <br />only owned the one restaurant, and did not own either of the adjacent <br />ones; and that no assembly of the property was proposed at this time. <br />Building Commissioner Conway stated that he is concerned since the front- <br />age is on Silverdale, this lot line (adjacent to the xesidence) becomes <br />a sideyard and the required sideyard buffer becomes 5 feet, so theoretically <br />a 30 foot wide building could be constructed facing Silverdale. Mr. Gavin <br />stated that they would agree to a condition that no sturcture would be <br />built on this parcel. Assistant Law Director Dubelko stated that this <br />might not stand up if a new owner took over the property. After some <br />discussion with the owner, Mr. Gavin stated that they would agree to a <br />deed restriction.that no structure would ever be built on this parcel. <br />hlr. Dubelko agreed that this could be enforced. 14r. Betts pointed out <br />that a new building could still be built to within 3 feet of this property. <br />Mr. Conway further advised that the property would not have to be assembled <br />with the front parcel in order to be used for parking. Mr. Hoyte, the <br />adjacent neighbor, advised that he was told by a builder that this property <br />could be developed residentially; and pointed out that there were many <br />smaller lot on the street. He questioned why Mr. Georgalis needs more <br />parking since this restaurant has changed hands four times in the last <br />two years. He claimed that Mr. Georgalis has told him of some plans to <br />purchase the adjacent Arby's after their lease is up for some t_ype of <br />master plan. Mr. Hoyte also pointed out that Mr. Georgalis does not maintain <br />his property at the present time, and probably will not when this is a <br />parking lot. He advised that there are two residentail lots adjacent to <br />this property and that he purchased his property from Mr. Georgalis without <br />being told that a rezoning was going to be requested for the adjacent lot. <br />Mr. Conway advised that a house could be built on.this lot with the approval <br />of the Board of Building Code Appeals, and theoretically a 27 foot wide <br />house would conform, however he could not answer to the feasibility of this <br />lot being used residentially. Mr. Gavin responded that since a 60 foot <br />wide lot is requzred this is a tremendous variance and it must be considered <br />that the property is next to two commercial lots. Mr. Thomas agreed but <br />stated that he is sure there will be some type of expansion, the present <br />building will not stay as is. Mr. Gavin suggested that probably it would <br />be best to tear down both buildings and build a conforming.structure, <br />but pointed out that P1r. Georgalis did not own botli buildings. He stated