04/11/1995 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

of the building could be removed and realigned with the addition. Mr. Baker stated that, with the new setbacks, this was the only way they could configure the building, and did not know if the comer could be removed, but noted the building would not be usable during the construction. Mr. Conway presented plans showing the break down of the what is storage and retail space. Mr. Baker stated that they would go with whatever proposal the plauviug commission preferred and presented a site plan showing the proposal using the Steffen property. Chairman Tallon advised that the commission could not hear the new proposal but with this proposed plan, the build.ing is too large for the lot. Mr. Steffen, the owner of the house to the rear, stated that Mr. Baker had presented him with a contract for the sale of his house, but he has not agreed to it as yet. If this does not take place, he has several concems about the proposal, some of them have been answered by Mr. Baker. He agreed that the building is too large for the lot and has other concerns: if the grade of the property is raised, there could be flood.ing on his lot; that his trees might be damaged during construction and from lack of water, because of the additional paving; that they might hook up their electrical connections to the pole on his property which might interfere with his swimming pool; that snow removal would be in the early morning hours; since teenagers park back there now leaving their litter, they would be even closer; to his home; the effect of this proposal would have on his dogs since the parking lot was so close to his property. But finally, his main concern was how this would effect his property values, if the Plauniug commission did not agreed to the second option. Mr. Skoulis, representing the home owners association, advised that the home owners did mainly object to a drive on Westview which has been eliminated but did request adequate buffering; nice landscaping; lighting that did not shine onto the resident's property; aud no gaudy signs. Cou.ncilman McKay advised that, just because Bakers buy the property, it does not mean that the zoning will be changed. If it were changed, he would want some kind of a rider stating that the property will only be used as a buffer since if the zoniug is changed more could be built later on down the road. He, too, would discourage a driveway on Westview Drive and would like some kind of mou.nding with a fence on top. It was clarified that the triangular portion of the lot that juts out was considered to be a rear yard. He also questioned what they meant by storm management. Mr. Hall responded that they would install a retention system that would discharge into the creek. Assistant City Engineer McDermott advised that they would be required to have underground retention. Mr. Tallon reiterated that the building was too big for the lot, and noted that if they removed the storage area, the building would comply to the code. He realized that the parcel was a unique shape, but did not believe it was to the city's best interest to have so much building on a lot. As far as rezoning is concerned, it is rarely done in the city and if it were done several deed restrictions would be required, such as just rezoning the portion that they need to commercial and requiring that the balance must be maintained as a buffer in order to guarantee to the city that it will be maintained residential in order to keep the residential character of the street. He noted that rezoning could set a precedent and other properties could rezoned down to Brookpark. Mr. Baker note that when a parcel is 150 feet deep and the setbacks are 50 feet from the back and 75 feet from the front, the lot is basically unbuildable. He has no objection to leaving the house as is. Mr. Manning reiterated that the configuration of the building is unappealing and cited another unattractive bu.ild.iug which had different setbacks. He further believed that there would be a problem with the maintaining rental property. Mr. Baker showed them a plan of another building with various angles which he maintained was very attractive. Mr. Mamiing believed that this would be more appealing that what they were planuing and again suggested removing the front of the existing building. Mr. Herbster asked if the front point could be used as some sort of an archway. Mr. Tallon stated that they were over building the lot, and because they really needed more space, they might move out later on, and h ? 2