02/28/2007 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

She advised the applicant that if they are successful in obtaining the use variance and before returning before the Commission, they should work with the City Engineer to resolve potential drainage issues and submit required wetland surveys as well as a lot consolidation plat. Building Commissioner Conway said that the lots are zoned multiple family which requires a 100 foot setback from the street the applicant shows 50 feet. The sideyard setbacks to the north are fine, but the south requires 31 foot setback and plans show 24 feet. The site's zoning pennits a ground sign but no a wall sign. Use variances as well as area variances are required for the development of the site he felt the commission should make recommendations on both the area and use variances required. Clarification of the photometric plan is needed as the averages are not shown and some of the fixtures do not comply with full cut-off requirements, although it is understood they are trying to use residential type light fixtures. Mr. Collins advised that a wetland determination has not been submitted and needs to be submitted as it could affect setbaclc requirements. Drainage of the site is challenging as it is a shallow site and may require the site have two separate drainage systems. If variances are granted applicants need to submit detailed engineering, grading, utility, road easement plans and retention calculation plans. Assistant Law Director O'Malley reviewed that BZA could impose conditions on their approval as can the Commission. He recommended the commission address the use and area variances and briefly address development plans. He reviewed the different standards for addressing area and use variances. Mr. Rerko asked if the use variance was granted and the applicant left the site would the site revert back to its previous use as residential. Mr. O'Malley advised that a use variance ran with the land however it could be limited to only the proposed use. Mr. Sampat, the architect, Mr. Haywood, the site engineer, and Mr. & Mrs. Walters, the owners, addressed the proposal. Mr. Sampat advised that the two dentists would like an 8 station dental office which will be a 3,300 square foot building which includes a partial basement approximately 1,600 square feet. The building design was chosen to be as residential as possible to fit into the neighborhood. The setback for the site was determined by using the average setback of other structures along the street. They are working out an easement with Wellington Place to have the site's only access-drive connected to Wellington's existing driveway, so there would be no direct access onto Clague Road. Due to the pie shape lot the layout for any building setbacks are quite difficult. They feel that the use fits the location. As part of the easement they would provide Wellington place a sidewalk from the rear of their site through the proposed site up to Brookpark Road. They believe that they can meet the engineering requests pertaining to wetland and detention requirements. The office is only open four days a week and the hours of operation are 8:00 am to 6:00 pm. Mr. Cotner asked if it was a common practice to deino a residential site to construct a business requiring a use variance. Ms. Wenger advised that a use variance request is addressed as a case by case scenario and is rare. The city does allow some limited business activities in residential districts i.e. home occupations such as professional offices, beauty parlor and offices and can employ up to one outside employee. If the dentists used this site as their main home they would be allowed to have a home occupation with one outside employee. She noted that the proposed use is more coinpatible with the area than the majority of other commercial uses. 4