|
-?
<br />Director Gareau advised that this Board had no authority to overrule the Plann;ng
<br />Comnission. Mrs. Comber, who owns the building to the east, stated that this will
<br />block the driveway of her business, and questioned if she would have to take
<br />legal actian against the Planning Connission. Mr. Gareau pointed out that there
<br />were traffic experts and studies and that this Board cannot second guess their
<br />decisions, and again advised that this Board has nothing to do with traffic, and
<br />if the Board rejected this on the basis of traffic and it was reviewed in court,
<br />it would be reversed. Mrs. Comber asked if the City would compensate her, if this
<br />proposal effects her building. Mr. Gareau further stated that there are rnnnerous
<br />case laws which address the ability of the City to deny someone the use of his
<br />property on the basis of txaffic, and it ha.s been clearly stated that the City
<br />cannot derry a person the right to develop his property because it is going to
<br />generate traffic, it is prestnned when property is zoned for commercial use, it is
<br />going to be used commercially. One of the investors in the business believed that
<br />this business will not be bringing in more traffic, that they will be drawing
<br />fron the traffic that is in the axea. Mr. Ellis, a tenant in Mrs. Comber's
<br />building, stated that he has been waiting 12 years for this builcling to be
<br />occupied, he claimed that he has lost employees because they are concerned about
<br />working next to an abandoned building..Mr. Ulissee stated that the developers ha.d
<br />revised the parking, increased tlie staeking capability, and agreed to hire an off
<br />duty policeman during peak hours, and it was stipulated by Planning Commission
<br />that if there is a problem and they do not get a policeman within 30 minutes, the
<br />police will close them down. He further advised Mr. Maloney that they ha.d, looked
<br />at a11 options, and this tr.affic pattern was considered to be the best, not only
<br />by their engineer, but also the City's traffic engineer. The members discussed.
<br />the appeal conditions and 14r. Gareau advised that the Board must agree that they
<br />Pxlst before a variance can be .granted.. B. Gomersall moved that the Board make a
<br />finding that the request of Velvet Touch Auto Wash with respect to the setback
<br />variance that the applicant has substantiated his claim as requ:i:red by Section
<br />1123.12(a)1 that there az-e practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships
<br />inherent in and peculiax to the premises because of physical size, shape.or other
<br />characteristics of such premises, seconded by B. Grace. (It was clarified that a
<br />"yes" vote would indicate that the developer had met the requirements and the
<br />Board did agree with the finc3ings and that Velvet Touch Auto Wash had
<br />substantiated their claiins)a Roll call on motion: Gomersall, Grace, and Maloney,
<br />no. Ferencik and Purper, yes. B. Gomersall moved that the Board make a.firiding
<br />that the request of Velvet Touch Auto.Wash with respect to 1123.12(a)2 if denied
<br />would deprive the property owner of stibstantial property rights, seconded by J.
<br />Ma.loney. Roll call on motion: Gomersail, Maloney, and Grace, no. Ferencik and
<br />Purner, yes. B. Gomersall moved that the Board make a finding that Velvet Touch
<br />Auto Wash with respect to 1123.12(a)3 is within and meets tYie purpose of the
<br />Zoning Code, seconded by J. Maloney. Roll call on motion: Gomersall, Ma.loney, and
<br />Grace, no. Ferencik and Purper, yes. B. Gomersall moved to grant the request for
<br />variance for Velvet Touch Auto Wash, 27100 Lorain Road, the request for a 42 foot
<br />front setback variance and 12 foot-variance for landscape buffer in front
<br />setback. Violations of Ord. 90-125, Section 1139.07 and 1139.08(e)3, seconded by
<br />B. Grace. Roll call on motion: Gomersall, and Grace, no. Ferencik, Ma.loney, and
<br />Purper, yes. Motion carried. B. Gomersall moved to grant a.special permit to
<br />Velvet Auto Wash, 27100 Lorain Road, special permit to add to non-conforming
<br />building. Violation of Ord. 90-125, Section 1165.02, seconded by W. Purper. Roll
<br />call on motion: Gomersall, Grace, and Ma.loney, no. Purper and Ferencik, yes.
<br />Motion failed to pass. Special permit denied. Mr. Gomersall stated that the
<br />setback variance was approved and the special permit was deni:ed. Mr.. Gaxeau
<br />pointed out that the votes were inconsistent, what actually happened was that the.
<br />2
|