Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 2/4/1987 !!' '#' BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS FEBRUARY 4~ 1987 PAGE TEN Ring~ala is putting in a lighted dance floor with a DJ. The times of the previous arcade were from 8 p.m. to 12 a.m. that the place was rolling. But they could not handle the vandalism and breaking the machines. He felt that it would be a hopping business. With added space they will have more people put in there like sardines. Mr. Nitkowski moved approval of the variance to expand the commercial shopping center 1~080 sq. ft. without providing the required 11 additional parking spaces. MOtion seconded by Mr. Kimberly. Motion denied 2-3. With regard to findings of fact for the affirmative, Mr. Kimberly stated that they have permission from the Westfield Development project for the additional 21 spaces. That was his major concern at the time of the previous denial which was not reported. Now that they have agreed to cooperate with that project it is okay. Ms. Hintz stated that there is a hardship imposed by the Ordinance~ that the Ordinance does not consider the time of business operation. To state that any action would make a difference did not seem fair.. to make him stlffer for the difficulties of the area. ..... . .... '. Mr. Nitkowski stated that he had.a hard timegal~~cing the public and the private concerns. He thought that it looked like an economic hardship when applying the guidelines. The argument that it is economic in nature is a minor argument and has little merit. Mr. Neu stated that he basically agreed with Mr. Kimberly. He stated that this situation is analogous with the arcade building on Main Street. They have limited parking and a lot of the public coming and going. The arcade is cramped for parking space. The beverage mart next door had difficulty providing customer parking. The traffic is heavy from Wednesday night on. With that particular arcade it was filled on Wednesday by 5 p.m. This situation is very analogous to that. G 300 SOUTH KO~LLER SrRll~r - Land"",,,k, gg,,,HJ Mr. Lamine explained the the applicant is requesting a variance to allow Stein Garden Center to erect a 10 ft. high fence around its outdoor garden merchandise display and storage area. The Fences and Hedges section of the Ordinance requires that fence height not exceed 6 ft. This varianCe request was reviewed at the January 21, 1987 meeting and was laid over becau~e ofa 3 to 1 vote. Larry Spellman, Spellman Building Systems, stated that he had made two phone calls to the property owners to the north--Dugolenski at 1745 Witzel and Siewert at 1761 Witzel Avenue. They have no problem with the 10 ft. fence. In f~~t~ Mr. Siewert is just happy to have that mess cleaned up. How did they feel about the landscaping? Mr. Dugolenski has poplars already and would prefer not to have something added. Mr. Siewert did not see any additional need for ;landscaping at that location. Mr. Spellman when asking Mr. Siewert about the screen or opaque screening, absolute- ly did not want it because he wants tg seewh~~_.~ going on. This is the same opinion of the other folks. They expressed a lot of joy that we would be cleaning up that mess. When he contacted them to see if something could be done with this site, they were very open about it. The property owners were very impressed with our personnel and how they conducted. themselves. If we had this 10 ft. fence they would not have to worry about the garbage. It would also block off the garbage blowing from the theaters and the. restaurant. The 10 ft. fence would help their yard work. of' '<It' BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS FEBRUARY 4, 1987 PAGE ELEVEN Ron Detjen~ 302 Ohio Street, stated that the general consensus of the neighbors is the height of the fence that we have indicated would be very effective for them. It creates protection for them. Not considering our hardship~ there is a reasonable amount of good from their point of view. Mr. Spellman stated that the people from the theaters have been cutting through for years. A 6 ft. high fence is not a barrier, it is a challenge to a younger person. In general they were really in favor of the height. The lack of screening was not a problem. However, they would be more than happy to add it if they changed their minds. They were very emphatic~ but people change their minds and we would not have a problem with whatever they determine is necessary. Mr. McGee stated that he had a couple of questions. (1) They have a security problem and are asking for a higher fence. That could be addressed according to commercial zoning. A fence could be located if ;it met the setbackof the.guilding, and that would be 25 ft. from the property line. There is the additional question of whether it was appropriate to have this commercial type or retail activity at less than 25 ft. The Code does allow parking activity with a 5 ft. setback to be maintained. We could interpret that as being analogous to a kind of density of activity that parking represents. He felt that it would be,appropriate to allow a higher fence and maintain a 5ft. setback, which is essentially the staff's reconnnendation. The other members felt" that ,the".!:> ft,' se,tgackw:astl~n.~c:e!'lsary and a 0 ft. setback was appropriate. Mr. Spellman stated that this is the smalle.stHsa;Les lot qf,the. 19 Stein stores. We guard the area jealously. He has always been confused on this, but no one has ever been able to show him the State Statute qr~he, Zoning Ordinance. He has been told that when considering a variance they determine if this is the best !,J,!3e of the property rather than the 130ard expounding that it cannot be economic. They are stuck with what is there and trying to get the best use out of it. They are providing a public service which will not t~rn into a junk joint five years from now. It all started when Albright Constructi,on called the City to ask what the requirements were on the fence. At that point they were told that with commercial there is no restriction. At the last meeting they suggested~ after spending "x" amount of dollars pouring concrete~ that they rip 5 ft. out around the periphery. Mr. Detjen stated that a 6 ft. fence isallqwi:d_.Y1i~h aO Kt.,.set.back.~...~.tein's has the right to install a 6 ft. fence, but that does not protect their supplies or the balance of his property, to be developed to the north, or the neighbors properties. They are a 20 year tenant. He wants the balance of, his property to be protected. They have the legal right to put a 6 ft. fence up. They are not asking for a setback, but an increase in the hi:ight to prevent people from running into the area or throwing things over the fence. The setback is ,a v~lid point, but that is not the question. The question is the additional height, and that is critical. The fence could exist already at 6 ft. They are asking to increase the height and they would be spending more money to do so. From the neighbors stand point this would meet their needs. They already have a beautiful line of poplars about 3 ft. off the property line. Six feet is allowed by Code; the least change is 2 ft. in fence rather than 5 ft. in land. He, thought that that was the least damaging and they have the support of the neighbors. Mr. McGee stated that they can put a 6 ft. fE::!nce ,On ,th.e property line ~ but that does not allow them to store otl,tdoor mater,1:.F,-,J-s. ~;iKh,i,,1:,!:.?~,~~,~.,,pt.~h:,ep~()perty line or to store plants for sale within 5 ft. He questioned if that is not the case? Mr. Lamine replied that he could not find anything regarding storage of items. <1:... BOARD OF ZONING APPEalS FEBRUARY 4, 1987 PAGE TWELVE Mr. Detjen stated that the Ordinance avoids the fact that there will be changes in commercial activity. If you cannot store wooden pallets you have a problem and this is a sales yard use. Mr. McGee asked if they would have bags of fertilizer there or whatever. Mr. Spellman replied in certain months of the year yes, but not for the majority of it. Mr. Detjen stated that they would be storing Christmas trees and living plants. Discussion ensued on the materials displayed for sale. Mr. McGee stated that there are materials there all year long~ though they may change throughout the year. Mr. Spellman replied that there is no Ordinance against doing that. That point is moot. He added that they are making the best use of the property and they are working with the neighbors. Two of the things that the Statute addresses have been taken care of. The real fact is that economics does come into play and it seemS like a strange argument from your view that it cannot be considered. Mr. McGee replied that the only unique argumentror the Code is that it is so restrictive that there is no potential use whatever. The Code would in fact seize the property. If you can present this argument~ then that is the closest we can come to accepting an economic hardship. Mr. Spellman stated that with a 10 ft. fence he could not afford to do that. That is an economic hardship, but that is not what he is saying. Mr. McGee replied that if a property is zoned C-3 or C-4, you are required to set aside a certain area called a setback. He cou14, not build his house up to the sidewalk or park cars allover the place for this same reason. Mr. Spellman replied that that requirement does not hold true for this property. Mr. Detjen stated that 6 ft. is allowed. In all, honesty, you should stay very strict with what is in the Code. You say 6 ft. and we want 10 ft. Is that the least change to accomplish it? A 5 ft. wall or a lesser change? The least change becomes the matter of the neighborhood and what ~hey view it as. He reiterated that 6 ft. is allowed. v.Tha:t is the least damaging for the people involved? Mr. Spellman stated that all the people around the property are in agreement. Mr. Lamine stated that there is one big piece of property to the east. The argument for the future residents of those buildings may be a potential problem. Mr. Spellman replied that they are aware of the potential development in the area. Mr. Detjen stated that they were not able to make contact there. They are interested in that persons property to the north also. Mr. Lamine stated that in regard to the Statutes, this is a quasi judicial board. If questions come up, they have historical documentation which the Code has determined as necessary to maintain reasonable use of the property and what the unique circumstances are in order to provide relief from the Ordinance. Mr. Lamine stated that the intent of this Board is to have some latitude. Mr. Detjen stated that that land has had a negative image for a long time. They have spent 1.8 million dollars and they are looking at adding a Ben Franklin. ~~ ,"'" BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS FE13RUARY 4, 1987 PAGE THlRTEEN Discussion ensued on the screening and the preference of the neighbors. Mr. Spellman stated that the area to the east the circumstances are such that it drops off from the driveway to the actual ground. This would change the height of the fence. He asked at what point would he put the fence? Mr. Nitkowski stated that they had granted a similar variance to Mercury Marine. Ms. Hintz replied that that is a manufacturing district. Mr. McGee replied that by the same argument the setback here would be 25 ft. Discussion ensued on the fence setback. Mr. Detjen reiterated his concern that this is an area that could be a hindrance to him and to the other stores going in. They are on the same property with a 20 year lease. He wanted a 10 ft. fence. He does not want his other businesses to bleed into that. His feelings about the 10 ft. fence relates to his being a neighbor. Ms. Hintz stated that in their willingness to cooperate in lieu of a setback for the fence would they, Steins~ put in greenery? Is that a possibility if that land is developed on the east? Mr. Spellman replied that that is not a problem if they want to do the work and maintain them. To be honest, that is the reason he mentioned the dip in the property. He wouldn't know what you would put there. There is a 3 ft. drop. It is swamp to the east. They have no way of knowing what they would be putting there with that elevation. Mr. Detjen mentioned that right now that area is a drainage ditch. That comes into play. Mr. Spellman stated that some of the people don't think that they are in the City yet! Ms. Hintz moved approval of the variance to allow Stein Garden Center to erect a 10 ft. high fence around its outdoor garden merchandise display and storage area. Motion seconded by Mr. Neu. Motion carried 4-1. With regard to findings of fact, Mr. Neu stated that he voted for it because he saw the security problem as unique to the situation. This is very important, as well as the fact that the problem of debris~ floating to the other property owners, is a nuisance. We should not frustrate what he ~s trying to correct. This is not an economic hardship here. With regard to the negative~ Mr. McGee agreed that he had problems. However, he did not agree that he could not have addressed tp.ose problems without moving to a o ft. setback. He saw no hardship not to require him to provide any setback whatsoever. There being no further business for the good of the City the meeting was adjourned. snL Chuck Lamine, AICP Associate Planner