03/06/2008 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

the boundaries of upholding the intent of the zoning codes and would not alter the character of the neighborhood or create adverse impacts nor would governmental services be altered. Mr. Conway said that the lot was a unique size and shape and when the code was written regarding the setback of a corner lot the majority of the lots abutted residential districts however this site abuts multi family zoning which requires a 100 foot setback. The site/lot can not accommodate the required 100 foot setback for the proposed use nor any other use including multi family. Therefore the setback conditions are too restrictive. The 5 foot setback variance the applicant has explained. Request #4 is for total square footage of signage on a building not total canopy signage and he does not believe that the request is excessive. The additional canopy is due to the rear canopy sign being visible to abutting lots. He advised that directional signs are counted as ground signs therefore a variance for two additional ground signs are required. The pharmacy logo which is in the window is not considered a wall sign but as it is a permanent sign it is calculated in the total square footage of signage on the building. Mr. Jurisch said both directional signs would be a total of 6 square feet and are needed for safety. Mr. O'Malley reviewed the charge of the board and how they should address all cases which come before them. Mr. George was concerned over the number of variances requested for a new development. The owner purchased the land knowing variances were required. They had an opportunity to purchase enough parcels which they chose not to pursue. The building is too large for the lot and the sideyard is only 5 feet off his building. The building placement will block his business from view and the (Lorain) curb-cut blocks his curb-cut. Granting the 5 foot sideyard variance places a hardship upon his lot. Mr. Murray voiced concerns with parking, light spillage and the number of deliveries and size of trucks making deliveries. He questioned hours of operation and said traffic during holiday seasons is bad and the new business will add traffic. Ms. Soltis is concerned the development will damage the detention wall, driveways, garages and lover level condos with stormwater run off, heavy snow and increased traffic. Ms. McCartney felt the two existing drugstores nearby are sufficient. Mr. George said his retention drains to Lorain Road and questioned were the applicants would drain Lorain or Columbia Road. Mr. Lewis said removing existing structures and the placement of the building would provide Mr. George's business more visibility as it lines up with his building. Snow storage will be placed to ensure it drains into the bio-retention system as it melts. Lorain Road curb-cut is right in right out only so it does not block neighboring curbs. The bio-retention system meets all city code requirements and was oversized to ensure water would not be an issue. The Columbia Road ingress/egress is three lanes to ensure traffic does not stack and vehicles can enter and exit the site. Mrs. Sergi did not believe testimony was given justifying a 5 foot sideyard variance required. The 52 foot building setback based upon the building commissioner's comments is not unreasonable. The width of the driveway is reasonable to allow better traffic flow. Two additional ground signs are warranted for vehicle safety. Ms. Rudolph felt both the 5 foot east side setback variance and total square footage of signage was problematic as well. Although she is sympathetic to the neighbors' issues, the BZA cannot.address those issues. Mrs. Bellido was concerned that vehicles in the drive-through lane in an emergency could not safely exit and felt signage square footage should be met. Mrs. Sergi did not object to total square footage of 2