01/09/1996 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

a told tliem to push the building forward. This is a long narrow lot, and the property must have a sign. They moved the loading because someone objected to it. He believed putting more landscaping in the back, next to the residents, was better than the landscaping on the side. He objected since this is the fourth meeting and it is still going back and forth; and noted that he started on this plan on August 30, 1995 and it is now January. Mr. Tallon stated that the commission was going to discuss each variance individually. Assistant Law Director Dubelko advised that an unnecessary hardship is the standard on which a use variance is granted; this is an area variance and should be based on a practical d.ifficulty based on the configuration of the lot or the unusual topography of the land so it is somewhat less severe on the developer. The variances were discussed one by one. Mr. Tallon stated that he had no problem with the 2 foot variance for the front yard setback. The second is a 10 foot variance to put 2 parking spaces within the 20 foot buffer area at the front. Mr. Georgalis pointed out that it was 10 feet on one side, but 14 on the other, but was adamant that he needed those two parking spaces. He believed that this would be better than having spaces in the back closer to the residents. Mr. Koeth believed that there would be a problem since overflow traffic would have to park in the back and customers would be walking in the front drive with cars coming and going down the 18 foot wide drive. He noted that there would be no safe place to walk, and he and some other members believe that the bu.ilding is too large for the lot. Mr. Georgalis stated that there were 11 spaces in the back, 5 for employees, and 6 for customers and there would be a back door for people to come in. He maintained that people walk in parking lots in all shopping centers. Mr. Herbster was concemed sinee children would be walking in that area. Mr. Tallon asked if they could build a hallway in the back so that customer could use that door. The developers agreed that it could be done. Mr. Brennan commented that if the front two parking spaces were eliiniuated, the sign cou.ld be placed back there. Mr. Koeth did not believe drivers could turn left onto Lorain Road. Mr. Manning believed that this business's peak traffic would be at the same time as the peak traffic in the area which has the highest traffic volume in the city causing a major safety problem. Mr. Georgalis responded that this was the reason for the drive onto Silverdale, but the commission had him elimuiate it. He maintained that the deed restriction was for the benefit of the city and the neighbors and believed it cou.ld be changed. The members did not want to put additional traffic on a residential street. Mr. Herbster was concerned about the size of the building. Mr. Georgalis reiterated that the buildiug is less than the 25% allowed. Mr. Herbster suggested that, since Mr. Georgalis thought that taking away 2 feet from the two landscape beds was minimal, perhaps he should take 2 foot away from each side of his building. Mr. Strelau advised that the letter listing the variances had raised major questions that were detrimental to passing the proposal along. Mr. Tallon responded that any time a proposal required 12 variances, the commission was going to ask questions. Returuiug to the list of variances, the members had no problem with the 2 foot side yard variance on both landscape buffers, but there was a problem with 10 foot for parking within the 20 foot buffer area at front. Mr. Tallon explained that the 2 feet buffer within 10 feet landscape area at the west was the result ofthe 2 foot variance on the west and was acceptable. The 34 foot wide drive (maximum'is 24 feet) was because of the island separating the lanes which was the suggested of the city traffic engineer and the members had no problem with that. The driveway was not at a 90 degree angle to the street, which is necessary because of the island. This could be referred to the traffic engineer again. The members agreed that the first, parking space on the east should be removed because pulling out of it would be dangerous with cars turning in. Mr. Strelau believed that most people would be cautious when pulling out, but after some discussion, he agreed to eliminate it. The sign can be moved to that parking space which will be landscaped and that location may conform to code. It was clarified that the loading zone was relocated because it would be easier for trucks to come in and out and Mr. Tallon did not think that was importaut. He reviewed the variances: no problem with the 2 feet front yard setback; 10 feet £or parking with 20 feet buffer will only require a variance on the west side since one parking space was removed; no problem with 2 feet side yard buffers on the east or west or 2 feet for parking within 10 ?., 4