02/03/1993 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

/ y -? CITY OF NORTEI OLMSTED BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES-FEBRUARY 3, 1993 Prior to the meeting Law Director Gareau administered the oath to Mr. Gomersall who had been reappointed. Chairman Gomersall ca.lled the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Present: B. Grace, T. Koberna, J. Maloney, W. Purper, and R.* Gomersall. Also Present: Law Director Gareau, Building Commissioner Conway and Clerk of Commissions Oring. B. Grace moved to approve the minutes of December 2, 1992, seconded by J. Maloney, and tmanimously approved. Chairman Gomersall advised those present that it would require 3 affirmative votes to approve a proposal; that each request would be approved based on the physical situation peculiax to itself and no judgement rendered is to be considered as a general policy affecting like situations elsewhere. 1. Halleen Chevrolet, 27932 Lorain Road. Request for variance (1123.23). Request variance to display vehicles in 75 foot front setback; request 13 foot variance for front landscape buffer; and110 foot side yard landscape buffer. Violation of Ord. 90-125, Section 1139.07 (table). Heard by Board of Zoning Appeals March 4, 1992; April l, 1992 and May 6, 1992 and appealed in court. Referred back for city approval by order of the court. Heard by Planning Comnission January 26, 1992. Chairman Gomersall called all interested parties before the board. The oath was administered to Mr. Giesser, attorney representing Halleen Chevrolet, and to Mr. and Mrs. Bobber, Mrs. Duffy and Mrs. Larosa, all neighbors. Mr. Giesser explained that the neighbors were mainly interested in maintaininv the residential zoning of one lot in the rear of the property which has nothi.ng to do witli this hearing. Mr. Gomersall explained the request and pointed out that the board had heard this case in 14arch, April, and May; and at the first meeting had requested a landscape plan which was never presented. They have now presented a plan, but Mr. Gomersall cannot read it. Mr. Giesser explained the proposal to continue the 7 foot setback across the front of the new lot, to remove.the white posts on the existing lot, to landscape the entire frontage and to continue the landscaping about 20 feet an the easterly corner where there is an existing driveway easement for the adjacent property. They have eliminated the variance for the pole sign and are going to raze the building (Partner's Lounge). Mr. Gomersall reminded him that the board had tried to work with them previously, and had made several suggestions, but they kept returning with the same proposal. He and Mr. Grace agreed that they still preferred the setback suggested previously. Mr. Grace stated that Mr. Giesser had never subr,iitted a landscape plan as he had promised. Mr. Giesser denied that he had made a promise. Law Director Gareau explained that the court has encouraged that some kind of a solution be reached, although the proposal went to, Planning Commission he does not lmow what they suggested. P1anrLing Commission asked for a 12 foot front setback across the entire area, not just the new parcel. Mr. Gomersall stated that previously they had not submitted a plan which could be negotiated, but he would not oppose a 12 foot bu.ffer across the entire frontage with car stops to keep cars out of the green area. Mr. Giesser advised that the Halleens will not agree to the 12 foot buffer. Mr. Gomersall 1