Laserfiche WebLink
a <br />variances that have been granted in the past. Ms. O'Rourke asked when the last addition was added. <br />Pastor Jenkins indicated in 7une of 1998, and it did not require variances. Mr. Rymarczyk questioned if a <br />variance was ever granted for the entrance drive. Pastor Jenkins was not sure, and indicated the apartments <br />were granted a variance to come across their property to tie into the drainage. 1VIr. Tallon questioned what <br />the setback for a commercial lot was. Pastor Jenkins indicated they were zoned residential. Mr. <br />Rymarczyk suggested if it is abutting a nonresidential lot it is 10' feet, if it is abutting a residential lot it is <br />50' feet. Mr. Tallon asked if the apartments were all commercial or part residential. Mr. Rymarczyk <br />suggested he was not sure and would have to look into it, but assumed it was residential. Mr. Tallon <br />indicated he would like to find out if a variance was granted for the south side of the building already. Also <br />look in minor changes to see if anything was put through under minor change for the south side yard. Mr. <br />Brennan asked if the applicants had samples of materials or colors. Mr. Saunders suggested they would <br />bring them ne,ct time, and indicated they would be matching the existing materials as well as colors that are <br />in the e;sisting building. Mr. Tallon asked what was in the back area of the lot. Pastor Jenkins indicated it <br />was wooded field with a street behind it. Mr. Tallon reviewed that around the front of your lot there are <br />privet homes, and in the back woods, so why not build towards the back of the lot. Pastor Jenkins <br />suggested they would like to keep the buildings closely located for the convenience of the parishioners. Mr. <br />Tallon questioned if they had thought about moving phase II addition to comply with the setbacks. Mr. <br />Tallon asked what would the setback be from the rear yard. Mr. Rymarczyk indicated 75'feet for side <br />yard and rear yard. Mr. Brennan indicated phase IV will need three variances one on the north east future <br />site a side yard variance as well as a rear yard is needed to build it. Mr. Brennan suggested building to the <br />back to eliminate the variances. He appreciates the vision of the church and the vision of what the church <br />would like to see, but you have residential considerations here and issues concerning the impact to the <br />surrounding neighbors. Ms. O'Rourke asked if they could just flip the proposed additions further east. <br />Mr. Saunders suggested the drawings were at the request of the church and we are here to work all these <br />issues out. Mr. Asseff asked if the other phases would change if the variances for phase II are not <br />granted., they have too many tight areas that will need quit a few variances. Mr. Brennan suggested there <br />is plenty of land and they should try to configure something that complies to the code. Mr. Tallon <br />suggested going back and reconfigure a plan that complies to the ordinances. Pastor Jenkins indicated in <br />the future we want a family development in the back area. Mr. Tallon suggested there is only so much <br />room to e,cpand on this property before you are encroaching upon your neighbors. Mr. Tallon suggested the <br />church needs to go back and look at what they can do to conform to the code. Mr. Saunders questioned if <br />it tivould help if they were to get letters from the neighbors. Mr. Tallon suggested it would help, but they <br />need to work on eliminating a lot of the variances. <br />R. Tallon motioned to table Columbia Road Baptist Church of 4116 Columbia Road until fiirther <br />submittals are rendered. The motion was seconded by T. Brennan, and Unanimously approved. <br />Proposal Tabled. In the framing of the motion Mr. Duebelko suggested for the record he had a couple of <br />comments from the Law Department concerning this proposal. The Planning Comrnission has handled it <br />properly as we don't really provide in residential areas for phase development. This was something done <br />one sided on the part of the developer, and it suggested the motion to table. Othenuise the property owner <br />acquiring any justed rights by submitting it as a phase development. The City doesn't provide for that in the <br />residents district. The second point he would like to make on behalf of the Law Department is that <br />regardless, whether or not residents approve of a variance, it is important that the City enforces its side and <br />rear yard set backs so the City doesn't establish precedence for other developments. There are obvious <br />reasons for assembly halls connected with churches to have some distance from homes because of the <br />potential for noise and things of that nature. The Plaruung Commission treated this properly. <br />C) Suburban Auto Body, 26618 Brookpark Road Ext.: <br />Proposal consists of renovating front facade, with new entrance and drive-through estimation bay, along <br />with redesigning the parking lot, and landscaping. Note: Variances will be required as well as a special <br />permit to add to a non conforming building. <br />? <br />?