1. It was moved by Mr. Zimmerman and seconded by Mr. Weiss to approve the minutes from the December 2, 2014 meeting.

Transcription

1 MINUTES BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AND CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, JANUARY 6, 2015 Present: Also present: Earl Leiken, Mayor Robert Zimmerman, Council Member John Boyle, Member David Weiss, Member Joyce G. Braverman, Director of Planning William M. Ondrey Gruber, Director of Law Dan Feinstein, Senior Planner 1. Roll Call. 1. It was moved by Mr. Zimmerman and seconded by Mr. Weiss to approve the minutes from the December 2, 2014 meeting. Roll Call: Ayes: Leiken, Zimmerman, Boyle, Weiss Nays: None Motion Carried * * * * BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS #1878. MURRAY RESIDENCE 3265 KENMORE ROAD: A Public Hearing was held on the request of Jennifer Murray, 3265 Kenmore Road, to the Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance to the side yard fence location regulations. The applicant proposes to install a 5-foot tall board-on-board fence in the side yard with a gate to the side door. The fence is 11 feet from the applicant s house and 4 feet from the neighbor s house. Code requires 10 feet on both sides of the property line in order to locate a fence in the side yard in between homes. The section of fence extends 21 feet beyond the rear corner of their house along the side property line. An existing line of evergreen bushes screens the new fence from the neighbor s view. Mr. Feinstein showed slides of the site. He stated this is a request for a variance to the fence regulations in the side yard. The applicant proposes to extend their rear yard fence into the interior side yard, up to their side door. The 5 foot tall board-on-board fence is proposed to extend 21 feet between the homes. Code requires that there be at least 10 feet of land from the side property line to each house in order to locate a fence in the side yard between homes. There is 11 feet on the applicant s side, but only 4 feet to the neighbor s house. The applicant wants the fence and gate across the driveway to extend to the side door for access for the children and dogs into the mud room, which is at that entrance.

2 Jennifer Murray, homeowner, said they lived at 3330 Kenmore for 9 years. She has recently been able to down-size in this new house. They just moved last month. She is very interested in the safety and privacy of her children and the dogs. They installed a fence in the rear yard in a code conforming location, but they need the fence to extend to the side door in order to capture the door in the enclosed area. In this way, the children will not need to lead the dogs to the gate and into the rear yard. The side door is the door that has direct access to the mud room in the house. The rear door goes straight through into a newly renovated and carpeted family room. She has a letter of approval from the neighbor directly across the street, which was submitted as part of her packet. She presented the Board with a letter from the neighbor directly adjacent to the extended fence. The letter supports the proposal for the fence in the side yard. Mr. Zimmerman asked the applicant to describe exactly where the fence would extend to on the neighbor s house. Ms. Murray said it would just come to their side door, so approximately where the neighbor s electric meter is located on the neighbor s home. Mr. Boyle said he thinks this request is acceptable as long as there is still access to the electric meter. This fence should not restrict access to the side yard. Mayor Leiken opened the Public Hearing. No one was present to speak in regard to this application. Mr. Zimmerman said he thought the request was reasonable in this case. It was moved by Mr. Zimmerman and seconded by Mr. Boyle to approve the request based on the facts and conclusions of law as set forth in the Action Sheet. Roll Call: Ayes: Leiken, Zimmerman, Boyle, Weiss Nays: None Motion Carried * * * * CITY PLANNING COMMISSION #1879. FAMILY DOLLAR STORE 3746 LEE ROAD: A Public Hearing was held on the request of Etemaduddin Arshad, Suhail & Suhail Inc., representing, Alan Berger, developer, on behalf of Family Dollar, 3746 Lee Road, to the Board of Zoning Appeals and City Planning Commission for site plan review and variances to the front building setback, parking requirements as to number of spaces, driveway width, rear landscape buffering, dumpster location and signage in order to construct a new retail building. The applicant proposes to locate a Family Dollar store at the northwest corner of Lee Road and Scottsdale Boulevard. Site plan review is required for all new buildings. This brick building, located on a corner lot, is proposed with an entrance facing the parking lot on the northeast corner of the building. The Lee Road front building setback is proposed to be 5 feet, which is less than the required 10 feet minimum setback. The rear landscape buffer is 9.5 feet wide and January 6, 2015 Minutes - Page 4911

3 includes a wood fence. Code requires a 20 foot wide landscape buffer area with a 6 foot tall brick wall and shade trees adjacent to residential development. Two primary signs are proposed, but one does not face the street, as required. Three driveways are proposed which measure 24 feet, 36 feet and 40 feet in width. Code limits driveways to 24 feet in width. Thirty (30) parking spaces are proposed. Code requires 42 parking spaces in this instance. The dumpster enclosure is proposed to be located in the Scottsdale front yard. Waste disposal facilities are allowed in the rear yard only. Mr. Feinstein showed slides of the site. He stated this is a request for site plan review and variances in order to build a Family Dollar Store. The applicant proposes to demolish the buildings at the corner of Lee Road and Scottsdale Boulevard, which includes the Putka Automotive Center and the former Lee Road Nursery. Site plan review standards address parking layout, landscaping, relation to land use policy, location of accessory uses and structures and compliance with code standards. Staff identified site plan issues including: 1) This corner is a gateway to the city per the Lee Road Traffic Study and Corridor Plan (2012). The proposed building does not treat the corner as a gateway; 2) The number, width, location and turning movements from driveways are excessive; 3) The large vacant landscaped area at the north end of the site should be studied further; 4) The lack of rear landscape buffer between the houses behind the site; 5) The dumpster location along Scottsdale Boulevard; 6) The need for the proposed large truck loading area and truck turning radii which results in the proposed site plan; and 7) A traffic study may be needed to study access and traffic issues. Variances requested include: 1) Lee Road front building setback 10 feet are required and 5 feet are proposed; 2) Rear landscape buffer 20 foot width, a 6 ft. tall brick wall and trees required and a 9.5 foot wide buffer and a 6 ft. tall wood fence proposed with no trees; 3) Signage 2 primary signs, one facing each street is allowed and two (2) primary signs proposed, but one does not face the street; 4) Parking spaces 40 are required and 30 are proposed; 5) Driveway width 24 foot maximum allowed and three are proposed at 24 feet, 36 feet and 40 feet wide; and 6) Dumpster location May be located in rear yard only. This proposal has the dumpster location in the Scottsdale Boulevard front yard. The Architectural Board of Review reviewed the design at their December 1, 2014 meeting. The case was tabled with the following comments: 1) more design detail in several areas of the building needed; 2)suggested more strategic placement of landscaping areas on the site to complement the building; 3) add detail to the Scottsdale façade including the dumpster enclosure; 4) differentiation in color of masonry and brick material in the pilasters and around the front entry; 5) different color awnings, perhaps black; 6) decorative light fixtures on the building exterior; 7) consider a different base material that simulate stone accents like pre-cast concrete (but not split-face block) in the same color as the tan brick; 8) more detail around the windows and the entry, Consider panelizing, recessing or other similar treatments; 9) consider replacing some or all of the blonde brick with pre-cast concrete to add a texture change; and 10) a photo montage to compare the heights of the surrounding buildings. Letters from neighboring business owners are available at the member s seats. Joe Ferenczy, Osborne Engineering, indicated he was there on behalf of the engineer who applied for the project. He is here to listen. He can explain the proposed plans, but cannot respond to any changes about them. Mr. Zimmerman asked if he could add to the plans, or suggest any changes. Mr. Ferenczy said no, he could not. He added that he thought there might be 42 parking spaces required instead of only 40. January 6, 2015 Minutes - Page 4912

4 Mr. Feinstein said he would look into the parking requirements. Mayor Leiken indicated that since the applicant was not able to more fully discuss the project, there are several members of the audience who would like to speak. He opened the Public Hearing. James Elder, Moreland on the Move Community Association representative, said the community is worried about having a Family Dollar store in the neighborhood. He spoke with 85 to 90 percent of the business owners on Lee Road and the majority of the homeowners on Sudbury Road. All but one of the business owners do not want the development of the property by Family Dollar. None of the homeowners are in favor of the development of the property by Family Dollar. There are already dollar stores in the city. There is one close by in Cleveland. There is one at Shaker Towne Centre. They do not need a third dollar store within a mile. The addition of the dollar store will impact the existence and livelihood of a 25 year business owner nearby. It would reduce resident property values behind the development. He presented a petition of residents and business owners signatures, who all express their displeasure with this proposal. Angela Ferrell, 3722 Sudbury Road, said the Dollar General store that is nearby in Cleveland has been robbed several times recently. She is worried that another dollar store in Shaker Heights will lead to similar instances. She is worried about safety in their neighborhood. Germaine Clemens, 3721 Sudbury Road, said there are 5 family dollar stores in the area, one at Kinsman, 4071 Lee, Miles, Miles and Buckeye. There are too many in the neighborhood. These stores add to traffic and crime in their neighborhood. The dumpster and its location are not acceptable. It will now have food in it, which will be smelly. He does not support the variance for a fence instead of a brick wall. He does not like the proposal and believes it will not support property values on his street. He indicated that the applicant is not able to answer questions about the project. That is not appropriate. Lynn Austin said she grew up in the neighborhood. Why was this location chosen for a Family Dollar? The site is not large enough. They do not want, nor need a Family Dollar store. The clientele of this store would bring trash to this area of Lee Road. They already have a grocery store. She is concerned about the clientele and traffic safety for this type of development in the neighborhood. She personally has been struck by a car on Scottsdale Boulevard. She does not want to increase the traffic on this street. There are many children and a school bus garage in the area. She is concerned about safety and traffic. Craig Stout, longtime Shaker resident, said he concurs with the statements by earlier residents. He does not think this is the highest potential for development on this lot. He is a member of the LaunchHouse team and an investor. That type of economic development is what the city should be looking for. LaunchHouse is full of start-ups looking for ways to expand on their site. Soon some of these businesses will move out and need spaces along Lee Road. That is the type of build-out, employment and property/income taxes that the city needs, not a Family Dollar store. Georgia Melvin, 3706 Sudbury Road, indicated her children exit their school bus very close to this location. She goes to the church on Nicholas Road. She does not believe this type of development is safe, with the amount of traffic near the intersection of Scottsdale and Sudbury and at Lee and Nicholas. The dumpster facing Scottsdale Boulevard is not appropriate. January 6, 2015 Minutes - Page 4913

5 James Walker, 3725 Sudbury Road, said he is a 22 year resident of Shaker Heights. Shaker is a high-class city. The first thing you see of Shaker Heights, as you drive north on Lee Road, should not be a Family Dollar store. This type of development should not be a gateway presence for the city. His daughter gets on the school bus at Scottsdale and Sudbury. The extra traffic will make it unsafe for the bus at that intersection. The Family Dollar store would be directly behind his house. He does not like the prospect of this at all. They should be required to keep the required setback from his back property line. A variance should not be allowed for this. He could have a parking lot right in his back yard. Jack Putka, owner of 3746 Lee Road, said he has been in business in Shaker Heights as Putka Brothers since No one wants to buy this corner. He has had offers from a liquor store and a gas station. He thought the Family Dollar was the best choice of those options. This would be a new brick building, acceptable in appearance to the City. Huntington Bank has a dumpster right on the side of the building on Avalon Road. It is nicely bricked in and looks appropriate. His property is not very deep, so it is difficult to find a tenant that will take the site. He had an offer recently from a gas station. Maybe he will have to take that offer instead of this one. Pamela Fletcher, 3749 Menlo Road, said she is a 22 year resident. A gateway to the city should not be a Family Dollar store. She does not think the city needed a storage facility on Chagrin Boulevard. She understands the current owner needs to sell his property and quit working, but does not believe that his legacy should be a Family Dollar store. He is leaving, but she has 30 more years in the city. She does not want a Family Dollar on that corner. She would want another business on the site that would fit in and be able to use the shallow lot without all of the variances. Carmella Williams, Scottsdale Boulevard, Moreland on the Move Community Association, said the city should consider other proposals that have been put forward by the community association. There are other ideas for development that would be more in keeping with Shaker ideals. This proposed business is counter-productive to those ideas. She is concerned with traffic. She would prefer that the city consider proposals involving traffic calming and diverse businesses along the street. Vicki Elder, 3559 Hildana Road, Moreland on the Move Community Association, said she would hope that Mr. Putka would be able to work with the City to find a different type of businesses to buy his property. She hopes those ideas would be put forward so that he can sell his property to an appropriate user. She supports Mr. Stout s comments regarding new businesses in the city. New business should be focused to supporting Shaker Heights into the future. Mr. Loggins, Scottsdale Boulevard, said he is a 36 year resident of the city. He likes the safe atmosphere of the city and decided to stay when he retired. He added a $30,000 addition on the house and made the investment to stay in the community, so he would like to protect his property value and his neighborhood. He is concerned about traffic, including foot traffic that may be brought to this store. His neighborhood has changed in the past and would like Shaker to agree to keep his neighborhood up. This does not include a Family Dollar store at this corner. January 6, 2015 Minutes - Page 4914

6 Ms. Ferrell said prior to 1964 Moreland was a part of Cleveland. She does not want it to go back to Cleveland and a dollar store makes it feel like that. Abe Hamed, Shaker Quality Foods at 3753 Lee Road, said he is a friend of Jack Putka. He knows he has health concerns and that he needs to sell the property. He also wants there to be a different use on the property. He said this dollar store is not an appropriate gateway store for the city. This type of store is not like the plans proposed by the City in the study of Lee Road. He has tried to run a store of his own that he is proud of and that is a good partner with the city. He has a stake in the neighborhood. He does not want another dollar store. The Dollar General store in Cleveland has impacted his business. A Family Dollar store might put him out of business. There are 5 other Family Dollar s in the area. We do not need another one here. A different commercial concept should be sought for this corner. Mayor Leiken said the Board has a strong sense of the comments made by the residents so he will close the public hearing portion of the meeting. Ms. Braverman indicated she had several concerns about the proposed store, based on the city development and adopted plans. She said this corner is a gateway to the city. The proposed development does not relate to any adopted land use policies. The Strategic Investment Plan, adopted in 2000, identified this area as a gateway to the city. The Lee Road Traffic Study and Corridor Plan from 2012 also called for improvements to the pedestrian environment at this corner and to re-establish the Shaker Heights character at the corner of Lee and Scottsdale as a gateway to the community. This development does not support a neighborhood character. There is an historic building across the street, the First Catholic Slovak Ladies Union, which is a local landmark building. The remaining corners have storefronts that face Lee Road, like Shaker Quality Foods, and the building directly north of this property. Overall, the proposed development does not support the character of the city or a gateway at this location. Mr. Gruber indicated there are six (6) variances requested for the proposal. The authority and the general purpose of those variances have not been met. The standards for variances include practical difficulty and hardship. The applicant has the burden to address those issues. This is listed in subsection E in the variance section The applicant has not presented an argument for those variances. Mr. Feinstein indicated there are 4 sentences on the application for the variances that address the variance requests. Mayor Leiken indicated that as Ms. Braverman and Mr. Gruber pointed out the applicant needs to relate the materials to the city s established public policy and to the variance standards. The applicant needs to show hardship and they have not. Staff has pointed out that this property and corner is a gateway to the city. This project does not treat the corner as that gateway. The dumpster at the side of the building is an issue. The buffer and the closeness to the back property line is an issue. Driveways are an issue. He read the issues in the Staff Report to list everything that has been pointed out as issues or problems with this proposal. He asked if the applicant present was in a position to address or make any statements about the proposal or these concerns. January 6, 2015 Minutes - Page 4915

7 Mr. Ferenczy said he would have to check with his client as to re-locating the dumpster. He can explain the existing site plan, but cannot address changes or approve any changes. He asked if a traffic study was required for this project. Mayor Leiken replied that a traffic study would be very helpful to determine some of the issues concerning traffic for this project. The Planning Commission was expecting considerably more input than what the applicant s representative is able to provide. Family Dollar has not been able to address the issues that are critical to the discussion of this proposal. The applicant has not provided a spokesman who is able to address many of the issues that have been raised. The submitted explanation does not address the reasons for the requests either. Based on the criteria identified by the Planning Department staff in regard to the site plan and the Chief Counsel in regard to the site plan he would move to deny the request. Mr. Boyle said he would second the motion. Without changing the building and site in a significant way, there is no way this building will fit on this size lot. They need a site approximately twice the size of this one in order for this concept to fit without the extent of the variances currently requested. The applicant has not provided any reasonable explanation for those variance requests. Mr. Weiss said based on the authority of the Shaker Heights Ordinances and the variance standards, the applicant has not provided any argument to meet those standards at this meeting. He does not see how the Board could approve the proposal based on those standards. There are multiple issues he is concerned with including the driveways, the setbacks and other questions that have not been addressed and cannot be resolved at this meeting. Mr. Ferenczy indicated he could address the site plan and explain anything the Board did not understand, but that he did not have the authority to change the site plan, or promise that anything could be moved or changed. Mr. Zimmerman said he apologizes to the applicant, and to everyone, for taking a call during the meeting, but he had to address an issue at home. He said Mr. Weiss makes a good point. The Planning Commission has to regard the site plan review and variances established on the standards. The standards have not been met in this case. The representative does not have the permission nor authority to suggest changes or make changes to the site plan. They have also heard directly from residents about their various concerns. These concerns have not been addressed by the applicant or this representative. Ms. Braverman read into the record the variance request sentences on the application form that list the delivery truck radius as the reason for the request for the variances. The driveway access does not need to be that wide. This proposal is excessive. The need for the variances have not been indicated. It was moved by Mayor Leiken and seconded by Mr. Boyle to deny the request. Roll Call: Ayes: Leiken, Zimmerman, Boyle, Weiss Nays: None Motion Carried * * * * January 6, 2015 Minutes - Page 4916

8 There being no further business and upon a motion duly made and seconded, the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. * * * * Chairman Secretary January 6, 2015 Minutes - Page 4917