12/05/2002 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

' give them the access to Lorain. Mr. O'Malley said he would caution the board that off site traffic considerations are beyond the scope of the board's role. To the extent that the board goes down that road with the applicant, he is certain the residents will want the same opportunity and will be talking about a lot of considerations that are well beyond the reach of these variances presented. At one time a memo went out to the board regarding practical difficulties and the factors that the board should consider. They look at how substantial a variance is and does a variance do violence to the spirit and intent of the code, and can the matter be resolved without a variance. If compliance with the code can be had, it should be had. He said one of the issues is whether the hardship was known to the applicant before he got started. Mrs. Sergi asked how much space is in the drive through area. She expressed concern about having enough space for cars to turn around. Mr. Willse believes there is enough space. He is not familiar with the other North Olmsted site, which does have access issues. He then mentioned the request for 7 ground signs. He pointed out one of those is an indicator sign on Clague and the reinaining signs are directionals. For the purpose of safety and directing traffic, they feel it is imperative and directionals will help the flow of traffic. He said there would be a ground sign out in front, and 6 directional signs. The most significant variance request relates to the minimum area requirement of 1.5 acres for a free standing restaurant. He distributed a square footage analysis and comparison (see attached) to explain their rationale for granting the variance. He said they are trying to understand the code and its intent. He said in looking at their development are they being unduly compromised in what they are being forced to do on 1.03 acres. Mr. Conway said they are looking at other parcels that were previously developed. Our code was re-done in 1991 and that is when the 1.5 acre requirement was put in. He said none of Mr. Willse's references is germane to the discussion. The lot in question was created. To discuss the other lots in relationship to this development is unfair and inappropriate. He may not need a full 1.5 acres for his development but it is obvious he is requesting variances based on the site the size that it is. If he didn't need variances then the only thing to discuss is the size of the lot and not some of the variances related to setbacks. Mr. Conway indicated he is in agreement with Mr. Willse on the directional signs. The federal government tied the city's hands when it said the city has to be content neutral. The city cannot tell someone to put in a "left turn only" or "one way" or "exit". The concern he has is if Wendy's leaves that site there would be 7 ground signs there. He would recommend the board tie that variance to this developer on this site only. Mr. Willse referred to the code, section 1165.04, regarding the issue of adjacent lots and the same owner. Mr. Conway confirmed the lot would have had to be existing prior to 1991. Mr. O'Malley said the code changed in 1991 and in approximately 1999 Retail Today was developing CVS and they brought a lot split proposal to the Planning Commission. They created the lot in 1999 so it wasn't a grand-fathered, non-conforming lot, pre-existing and build-able prior to 1991. This lot was created after the zoning change. The Planning Commission and its minutes reflect the chairman making that comment and making it known to the owner at that time. The lot is a legal lot but not of sufficient size to support a restaurant. Mr. Willse said they have gone above and beyond to meet and exceed code requirements as far as landscaping and have done the best job possible with the existing lot perimeters to come up with a workable site. Mr. Kremzar asked why they picked that lot. Mr. Willse said it was availability and lot size. Mrs. Smith indicated she lives across the street. They need too many variances and so the lot is too small. A restaurant should not face the residents and to allow it would set a precedence. It may bring in tax dollars to the city but the residents there have paid their taxes. She doesn't want headlights shining into her home, the smell of fast food, or the noise and traffic. She pointed out that the Planning Commission all voted this proposal down. Mr. Sturgeon mentioned the loading zone, irrigation, the apron, and the lot size. He said the city needs to stick with the code. Mrs. Sturgeon brought up the fence and the fact the grading was not done properly. Her son pointed out that the Planning Commission had previously recommended the fence not be continued. Mrs. Bowman referred to the list she submitted to the board before the meeting. She said that none of the restaurant locations referred to by Mr. Willse are on a residential street. Mrs. Sergi asked if the driveway will be a right turn only driveway. Mr. Willse said their proposal is to have it be an 9