Laserfiche WebLink
e <br />?'L• ? . <br />most of its work off site. Mr. Koberna believed that a financial service and a doctors or dentist <br />office would not have a lot of traffic and did not think that there would be a lot of truck traffic. <br />Mr. Hu$'inan was concerned that they would put a business in the basement. Mr. Mongello <br />believed that they could put a 25 foot drive east of the building and still have some area for <br />landscaping. He reiterated that they could put a guard rail along Fleharty, and noted that 5 <br />feet of landscaping on would match what is existing. Mr. Maloney believed that there should be <br />at least 10 feet of green area at the rear of the bu.ilding, at least 25 feet on Fleharty, and at least <br />10 feet iu the front. Mr. Mongello pointed out that there were many trees on Mr. Pfaff's <br />property next to tlus one that would be a buffer. One neighbor wanted arborvitae planted in <br />back, another suggested a fence. Mr. Glazier stated that he would agree to arborvitae, but was <br />concerued there was not enough space for them. Mr. Orlowski reminded the Board that <br />landscaping and driveway was up to the Plamiing Commission, and still maintained that the <br />front 5 foot setback should be 20 feet as required. He also stated that, since the building was 20 <br />feet lugh, there should be some tall conifer trees. Mr. Maloney noted that with a 40 foot <br />building and a 5 foot sidewalk would cut down the parking and drive to 35 feet which is not <br />enough. Mr. Gomersall suggested that they reduce the size of the building. After much <br />discussion it was agreed that the length of the building could be reduced by 20 foot in order to <br />put a 20 foot drive east of this building. In reference to the rear area, Mr. Koberna would <br />prefer to give more buffer in back for the neighbors. Mr. Orlowski suggested that the variances <br />be denied so that the developer could come back with a different design. Mr. Conway stated <br />that a building less than 40 feet deep was not feasible and again noted that the developer has a <br />right to develop lus land. Members discussed various possibilities. In refereuce to the rear dive <br />and parking area, Mr. Conway clarified that 40 feet was the least depth that they could have <br />aud then it might be tight. He noted that there was probably a rear side walk so that would take <br />up some of the depth and the same would be true of the front. It was later decided that the rear <br />sidewalk could be eliminated, but not the one in front. In reference to the rear buffer, one of the <br />neighbors wanted green area, not a fence as Mr. Gomersall suggested and believed that <br />axborvitae would grow and eventually shield the building. Mr. Mongello suggested an 8 foot <br />landscape buffer which could be planted densely with evergreens. Mr. Maloney reviewed the <br />variances that were requested and advised that arborvitae could grow to 25 feet. Mr. Orlowski <br />did not believe that conifer trees could be planted in 8 or 10 feet and did not believe that the <br />board had the authority to decide on greenery, to change driveways or the size of the building, <br />that is up to Plauuing Commission. Mr. Gomersall stated that they were ruling on the variances <br />and the variances included the setbacks. (Neighbors and members discussed proposal <br />individually and discussion was not clear, a few remarks could be heard.) Mr. Koberna advised <br />the developers that if the board voted on what is in front of them, they might be denied and <br />have to return. Neighbors were still talking in back ground. Mr. Mongello suggested using a <br />concrete material wluch greenery would grow in and also advised that they intended to put <br />trees in the front landscape buffer. Mr. Koberna doubted that trees could be planted there. Mr. <br />Gareau stated that you cannot have a building and parking on a 140 foot deep lot, the building <br />could only be 10 foot wide and 7 stories high. Mr. Koberna believed that they would have to <br />give up something. Mr. Orlowski asked that the board deny the variance so that the developer <br />could come back with a new plan and believed that the neighbors should have the buffer in the <br />back, and the front buffers were designed to have more green area on Lorain Road. Mr. Gareau <br />stated that the charter of the city provides for this board to do exactly what it is doing, and to <br />deny the variances would mean that tlie lot is unbuildable. Neighbors argued with Mr. Gareau, <br />6