09/02/2010 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Rudolph moved, seconded by Mrs. Bellido to grant Kurt Gillberg of 6054 Burns Road the following variances for a future detached garage as amended: 2. A 5 foot rear yard variance for a detached garage to close to rear property line; code requires 101, applicant shows 5', section 1135.02(c)(2). 3. A variance no grater than 5 feet for a garage too close to residence (#2); code requires 15', applicant shows under 151, section 1135.02(c)(2). The motion was approved 4-1, Mr. Lopez voted no. NON 12ESIDENTIAL APPEALS ANI) REQUESTS CMS09-05 WEA Great Northern Mall, LLC; 4954 Great Northern Mall: Request for an extension of time from August 6, 2009 approval date. Code states niling, determination or order of BZA expire one year from the effective date of such ruling, determination or order, Section 1123.15. Note: BZA tabled 8/5/10. Evan Vlaeminclc, Westfield Development Manager, and Chris Barnett, Senior Vice President, were sworn in and accompanied by Tony Vacanti, Attorney. The applicants said they were seelcing an extension of tiine for the previously granted variances. They noted both the Planning and Design Cominission and City Council granted their request for an extension of time based upon the unique characteristics of the property since meeting with the board in August. All previous testimony and evidence of hardships and findings of the August 2009 BZA meeting are still in place and have not changed. Talcing into consideration that the board had found that the unique characteristics and hardships of the site warranted the 19 variances granted they are seelcing a one-year tiine extension. There has been no change to the previously approved plans however econoinic circumstances are such that they are not in a position to start the project. The inall is, has and will continue to worlc hard towards completing the project as presented and approved. There has been a substantial investment in the preparation and leasing of the approved project. The portion of the inall's approved plan is such that they can not move forward until the major tenant does. Mr. Mitchell said the mall had quite an undertaking bringing the project before the city last year due to the site having multiple owners and cross easements which had to be addressed prior to submittal. The mall has been worlcing hard to maintain their current tenants and are worlcing to bring about the approved new look at the mall. Mr. Gareau advised the board as to how they should proceed and address the request. Ms. Wenger said the administration supports the time extension for the project, which is an economically significant project which is complex due to the numUer of tenants and owners involved in the project. The applicants request is reasonable and is the same development project which was approved in 2009. If there are any changes to the approved plans the applicants will have to resubmit for a new review. The board evaluates each case based upon its location and circumstances and in this case the time extension is clearly related to the current marlcet conditions and project complexity. Opinions of the board members were mixed. Mrs. Sergi was against the variances being granted in 2009 therefore apposed the time extension, and Mrs. Diver was concerned that if the major tenant changed they would not have the opportunity to review possible changes or have input in the review. Mr. Gareau advised that testimony had been given that there would be no changes to