05/27/2003 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Farrell voiced that the commission wanted to split the old from new and the old proposal needs variances for signs, exists and setbacks. Mr. Spalding suggested the board would address the north parcel. Mr. O'Malley voiced that the commission would not be able to accomplish much at this time. Mr. Lasko voiced that he agreed the commission could not get far, as he understands the new driveway involves the old and new proposals. So he does not think continuing the conversation would be productive. The applicants started their presentation encompassing the old plans with the new development to the point that it creates a whole new proposal. Mr. Farrell agreed that they did do that with the driveway. Additional Concerns of Board 1Vlembers: Mr. Hreha voiced that he would like to resolve the fence issue and questioned if the resident was in the audience. Mr. Beebe Sr. came forward to address the fence issue. IVir. Beebe Sr. indicated that he has lived in his home since 1937 and has always seen cars out his window, but not so damn many as he does now. At the least he would like a good vinyl fence if possible the fence to be 8-foot high. Mr. Spalding questioned if Mr. Beebe would prefer just an 8-foot fence, just a 6-foot mound, or a 6- foot mound with a 6-foot fence. Mr. Beebe Sr. suggested his son was present and as he will own the home one day he should be asked. Mr. Ryriaarczyk informed the board that Council had reviewed this and determined that both should be the same height and color. Mr. Beebe Sr. voiced that he has been looking at a big hole in the ground since last July and questioned when the retention basin would be completed. Mr. Rymarczyk referred the issue of retention basin to engineering and voiced that many variances are required. Mr. Hreha recommended that council allow what the applicant and Mr. Beebe agreed on to take place. Mr. Rymarczyk suggested the board address this project, as a whole not to piece meal it as it will never be completed that way. Mr. Spalding questioned if the fence along Mr. Beebe's rear property line would be 6-feet high. Then at his southwest corner property line the fence will be 8-feet high and run the entire length of the property to Porter Road. Mr. Farrell indicated that the fence would start at the southeast boarder of Mr. Beebe's house to the south west end of his property then along his rear property line. Mr. Spalding questioned why the fence did not run along Mr. Beebe's entire south property line. Mr. Farrell suggested Planning Commission said not to place a fence there as it would be a trash collector. 1VIr. Hreha suggested that regardless of what was approved or not approved by this panel or another panel before, there should be a least an 8-foot fence approved for Mr. Beebe's southern property line. Mrs. O'Rourke indicated that the engineering department has 14 write-ups in their letter dated May 21, 2003. She questioned if the applicants had addressed any of the issues or submitted engineering plans. Mr. Suhayda indicated that they had not submitted engineering plans as they are waiting for Planning Coinmissions approval of the whole project then they will submit plans. The engineer is not hired until all city approvals are completed. Mrs. O'Rourke questioned how the board could approve the project when there are no plans for curbs, aprons, and utility trenches. Mr. Suhayda suggested that was how it was done the last time. After all the approvals, the plans were sent to engineering, we were given all our permits, and all that work is completed. He voiced that they would put in the concrete apron and concrete curbs. Until everything is approved, many things could change. Mr. Spalding questioned if the variance list was for both the old and new projects. Mr. Rymarczyk suggested that the variance required involve both projects, but could be broken out. Mr. Spalding questioned if there was a valid reason the applicants could not comply to the variance items listed. Mr. Farrell indicated that they need a few variances from the Board of Zoning Appeals board. He suggested they were advised that the irrigation plans do not have to be shown in the plans as they are required. The 5-foot variance for parking in sideyard setbacks is needed to comply to the other portions of our plans that were granted variances. The concrete curbs will be in place because that is required by the city. The illumination of the parking area has been accounted for. Mr. Rymarczyk indicated the applicants submitted photometric plans but they do not comply to the building code. Therefore, variance for lighting is required. Mr. Farrell believes that variance is in accordance with the other variances they were granted as well. They need a variance for the ground sign. Mro Spalding commented that the photometric plan does not show street names 5