Laserfiche WebLink
be bollards or something along the northwest drive to ensure traffic does not use the drive. Ms. <br />Wenger said there had been discussions of placing the patio along the rear or side of the building <br />however the least amount of impact upon the residents could only be achieved in front. <br />Ms. Rudolph read a letter from an abutting neighbor objecting to the variances due to the noise <br />levels increasing and the impact the plaza on the value of their homes, noting variances would <br />change the character of the neighborhood and increase patrons wandering in their backyards <br />from the bar. The plaza is not well maintained and trash blows into their yards all the time. <br />Expanding the parlcing lot entails removing trees and being closer to the residents which will <br />adversely impact their homes. Limiting traffic to the east drive will require all rear vehicles <br />leaving to turn around thereby shining headlights into their windows. They request all variances <br />be denied. Mr. McGettriclc said there will still be an additional 50 feet of woods beyond the <br />parlcing. Mr. Gareau said Planning and Council would address property maintenance issues and <br />advised the board to only address those items pertinent to the variances requested. Mr. Randal <br />said putting the patio along the front will keep the patrons in the front so it could help keep <br />people from wandering into yards. <br />Mr. Lopez understood the request for the patio but the proximity of the patio to the front drive <br />aisle is not safe and placing a patio in the parking lot will not enhance the site. The character of <br />the neighborhood will be adversely affected. Mrs. Bellido felt the variances were substantial and <br />the proposal would impact the neighbors. Mrs. Diver said the property could continue to receive <br />a reasonable return without a variance and the variance is substantial for its location. The patio <br />location will create safety issues. Increasing the rear parking lot and adding front outdoor <br />seating will increase the noise and foot traffic of both the front and rear of the site. The property <br />owner purchased the site with knowledge of the zoning restrictions and the spirit and intent <br />behind the zoning code would not be upheld granting the variances. Mr. Konig said during the <br />summer months they can not keep their windows open due to the noise from the bar. Increasing <br />the outdoor activities will increase the noise levels and increase traffic. Although he does not <br />object to a patio there is no way to have a patio without affecting the neighbors. Ms. Rudolph <br />understood the need to stay competitive but the variances are substantial, the character of the <br />neighborhood would change and a patio doesn't enhance the plaza and may create more issues. <br />Mr. Lopez moved, seconded by Mrs. Diver to grant CMS10-10: Stop on Inn of 29352 <br />Lorain Road the following variances are requested: <br />1. A 25 foot variance for business activity within required 75 foot front building setback; <br />code requires 75 ft, applicant shows 50 ft, Section 1139.07 (see note). <br />2. A 25 foot variance for a fence constructed within front yard setback; code requires 75 ft, <br />applicant shows 50 ft, Section 1139.07. <br />The motion was denied 0-4. <br />COMMUNICATIONS <br />Mrs. Diver moved, seconded by Mrs. Bellido, to excuse the absence of Nancy Sergi which <br />was approved 4-0.