|
8. The Board does not find the noise study and analysis presented by the applicant to contain substantial,
<br />probative and credible evidence. The Board questioned and doubts the expertise and methodology of
<br />Mr. Fischer and Mr. Berg to conduct such a noise study and to offer opinions on the noise levels
<br />should this car wash operate at this location. However, even if the noise emanating from the car wash
<br />were insignificant or unappreciable, as the applicant has testified, the Board does not find that the
<br />single factor of noise dominates the overall purpose and intent of the zoning code. That is, the issue
<br />is not just noise level but whether this commercial car wash activity is contrary to the residential
<br />character of this area, as addressed below.
<br />9. Mr. Dordellyle, Vice President of Marketing and representative of Laser Wash, testified to the volume
<br />of traffic and general business practices associated with these car washes. The Board finds this
<br />business activity to be inconsistent with and detrimental to the residential character of the
<br />neighborhood in terms of continuous traffic flow and retail commercial activity.
<br />10. Kim Wenger, City Planning Director, testified based upon and explained that the City's Master Plan
<br />considered the Multiple Residence Zoning to be appropriate for this property and, contrary to the
<br />applicant's representation, did not recommend any change to this zoning. In addition, the Planning
<br />Commission reviewed the applicant's development plan and recommended aaainst this use variance.
<br />Accordin;ly, the Board finds that this use variance is contrary to the purposes, spirit and intent of the
<br />zoning code.
<br />11. Ms. Wenger testified that variances, particularly use variances, should be limited because they
<br />contradict the zoning code. Ms. Wenger offered her professional opinion and the Board agrees that
<br />the car wash use would be contrary to the intent and spirit of the zoning code to separate commercial
<br />activity from residential neighborhoods. Further, she determined and the Board finds that the
<br />property could accommodate a number of permitted uses (as listed by Building Commissioner, David
<br />Conway), especially multiple family housing (as verified by the testimony of Gary Fischer, architect).
<br />Finally, she stressed and the Board finds that the property owner is currently
<br />using the property, as zoned, and the fact that Mr. Berg could potentially enhance its profitability does
<br />not demonstrate deprivation of all economically viable uses.
<br />12. The applicant relied on its real estate broker, Mr. Bossman, who testified that Mr. Berg was the only
<br />party interested in the property. Upon inquiry, the realtor and property owner said the property was
<br />listed at $225,000. Mr. Meserini, Manager of Wellington Place, testified that Shore West, as its
<br />parent corporation, declined to make a formal offer on the property because "they wanted 3 or 4
<br />times" the amount considered to be a reasonable value as zoned. The Board finds that the applicant
<br />has failed to prove he has no economic viable use of the property as presently zoned and failed to
<br />exhaust all reasonable uses or development of the property, as zoned.
<br />13. The Board finds that the property owner is not deprived of substantial property rights by application of
<br />the multiple family zoning. First, the owner has and continues to use and rent the existing single
<br />family residence. Second, Mr. Berg as a prospective owner, has no reasonable expectation or
<br />substantial property interest which would justify the installation of a commercial car wash within a
<br />residential zone.
<br />14. The Board finds, based upon substantial, probative and credible evidence introduced, that flus
<br />property is not so wuquely or peculiarly situated or affected by I-480, Brookpark Road, the cell tower
<br />or the Wellington Place, not generally shared or suffered by these other residents. Specifically, the
<br />Board finds that the light, noise, traffic and aesthetic views arising from their proximity to these
<br />improvements impact the entire residential neighborhood, not just upon the applicant.
<br />Notwithstanding the impact and proximity of these features, none of which is commercial in character
<br />or use, the neighboring residents described and the Board finds that the integrity of this residential
<br />zone remains intact.
<br />15. Notwithstanding the red-brick, western-reserve style architecture of the proposed car wash and the
<br />applicant's professed limitation upon its business activity, the car wash is admittedly categorized by
<br />high volume, retail or consumer sales and is inherently inconsistent with residential uses. The Board
<br />finds that this use is contrary to the spirit and intent of the district.
<br />12
|