Docstoc

minutes - City of Lorain

Document Sample
minutes - City of Lorain Powered By Docstoc
					                              ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
                                    MINUTES

                                                            DATE: July 6, 2011
                                                            TIME: 9:00 a.m.
                                                            PLACE: Council Chambers

Chief Tom Brown called the meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals to order at and
asks Mr. Klinar to take the roll call.

MEMBERS PRESENT: Ken Kramer, Mrs. Wrice, Dr. Ramirez, Chief Brown and
Robert Gilchrist

Chief Tom Brown: Okay we have a lot of people here this morning, and we have a lot of
things on the agenda. So if the applicant is present for each of the cases if you would
please approach the microphone , and for the record state your name and address. We will
conduct this Public Hearing first.

Nelson Barreto: Good Morning. My name is Nelson Barreto. I am the Pastor of the
church and which I am located at 330 Iowa Ave. We have been in Lorain for three years,
and we plan to (inaudible). Have enough people. In my Congregation (inaudible) We ask
your permission to Council to see if we can open this property. Which is very good for us.
Two hundred some people. It’s not in the best shape, but we are planning to get it into
shape, but (inaudible). My Incorporation in Lorain, Ohio. (inaudible) Any questions?


Robert J. Gilchrist: Any questions or comments from the board?

Chief Brown: It makes sense – it was previously a Church. If it looks a duck, and walks
like a duck – if it looks like a Church. I think that it is a far working Congregation would
be a vast improvement. We have had issues in the past with maintenance, deserted cars,
and everything else. So if they are going to come in and fix the place up – I think it would
be a welcome addition to the east side of Lorain.

Robert J. Gilchrist: Any questions or comments from the board? There being none. Do
you care to entertain a motion? Before we do that is there any questions or comments from
the public? Any questions or comments from the public at all? There being none. Motion?

Mrs. Wrice: I will make a motion that we accept.

Ken Kramer: I support.
Robert J. Gilchrist: So the proper motion is supported to approve the Conditional Use
Permit for 330 Iowa Ave. Questions on the motion? Questions? There being none all those
if favor?

Board Members: Aye.

Robert J. Gilchrist: Opposed have the same right. Motion passed. Thank you, Sir.

Richard Klinar: Next item on the agenda, C.U.P. #2-2011 Public hearing for a
Conditional Use Permit, as per Section 1131.05 of the Planning and Zoning Code to allow
for a Wind Turbine to be located at 1510 Kansas Ave. I-1 Zoning Robert Pawlik applicant
for Emerson Network Power.

Robert J. Gilchrist: Is the applicant present? If you could state your name and address for
the record, please.

Robert Pawlik: My name is Robert Pawlik – I am representative for Emerson Network
Power. (Inaudible) What we are trying to do is supplement our (inaudible). We would like
to test the environment (inaudible) purposes. Marketing on with our equipment. That is the
reason for this request.

Robert J. Gilchrist: Any questions or comments from the board?

Dr. Ramirez: So it’s not going to be one that you use yourself. Or will it transition to one
that you can use?

Robert Pawlik: No. This one will be used for testing purposes. (Inaudible) Marketing our
equipment. (Inaudible) It’s actually (inaudible) grids or anything in the City. We would
like to leave it up so that if we have any problems in the field. We would have one here to
work on to determine the problems, and the corrections for it.

Kenneth Kramer: What is the height of this wind turbine?

Robert Pawlik: It is approximately between forty-five and fifty feet above ground. About
fifteen above our roof.

Kenneth Kramer: Any conflict with the high tension wires over there?

Robert Pawlik: No, not at all.

Kenneth Kramer: Does the City have any ordinances on wind turbines?

Richard Klinar: Well that is why we are here today because wind turbines are a
conditional use in an I-2 district. They are located in an I-1. We are going to get into the
variance to allow it in an I-1 later on in the meeting. This is just – you have to have a
public hearing to allow as an conditional use first, and then we will get into the variance as
far as allowing it in that district.

Dr. Ramirez: I am a little confused by this, because typically you use that (inaudible)
computer model or the simulation for it. Rather than putting out a piece of hardware in the
backyard.

Robert Pawlik: That’s true; we still need to see one in operation. Wind conditions in this
area – we just need to evaluate it everyday and log the results. (Inaudible). We are not
actually manufacturing the wind turbine. We are just doing the testing on it.

Dr. Ramirez: I am still confused. I don’t understand where you have an (inaudible) system
for this area for the wind types we have here – that you are going to use for across the
United States.

Robert Pawlik: Actually, it is just so that we have some standards to go by. We can say
that in this kind of climate and this kind of conditions – this is the performance of the
turbine.

Dr. Ramirez: But that’s so narrow. It’s such a narrow band. I am not trying to be…

Robert Pawlik: We have to have some sort of standards that we can use to market to our
customers. So that we can say this is the conditions in this area. (Inaudible) the wind
turbine would react this way and this way. Until we have the results of how it actually
operates we won’t be able to tell them that.

Dr. Ramirez: And you have other wind turbines in other locations across the world that
you are going to get the same kind of data from?

Robert Pawlik: No. No – just in this area. The reason for that is because a major area of
product (inaudible) are located in Lorain. If (inaudible) in Georgia or Chicago they will be
doing the testing there.

Dr. Ramirez: I am getting a little bit away from this, but is this going to create any new
jobs or anything?

Robert Pawlik: No, but this is just my opinion – we may not lose jobs. Those engineers
that are going to be dedicated to this process – if we can’t do it in Lorain. Then Emerson
will go back – if we can’t do it here – then we will have to look at another site, and the jobs
could go with it.

Robert J. Gilchrist: So if I am understanding correctly ; you are looking to have a
conditional use so that you can erect a turbine study with real time effects. So this turbine –
I am not here to suggest how you handle your (inaudible) but to study the real time effects.
Also, I would imagine we might be using this as a sales tool to sell these throughout the
country. You have to have something real and live to be able to show off, but more so a
study to see what the standards are so that you can create your variances based on wind
conditions somewhere else in the country.

Robert Pawlik: That’s correct.

Robert J. Gilchrist: And just to remind the board that we are here to approve or not
approve a conditional use permit. It’s allowable in I-2 – is that correct Mr. Klinar. This is
I-1 Zoning which is more restrictive. So our job is to decide if we want to approve or
disapprove the conditional use.

Chief Brown: I would be in support of the variance at the appropriate time. I think anyone
that travels by Emerson’s new complex on the east side. They have made a commitment –
they have created a world class facility. Everything they have done there has been
outstanding; down to the landscape, lighting, entryway, everything. I don’t believe that it’s
going to effect the neighbors. I think it’s a good thing to look for the future, and if it’s
going to keep jobs here – I am in full support of that. Everything they have done there so
far has been world class. I would be in support at the appropriate time.

Dr. Ramirez: I will second that.

Robert J. Gilchrist: Was that in the form of a motion?

Chief Brown: I will make said motion.

Robert J. Gilchrist: Oh I am sorry. We are doing conditional use. Before we make that
motion – let me yield so that we can hear any questions, comments or concerns from the
general public. There being no questions – the motion has been made and has been
properly supported to approve the conditional use permit for CUP #2-2011. Questions on
the motion? Questions on the motion? There being none all those in favor?

Board Members: Aye.

Robert J. Gilchrist: Opposed have the same right. Motion passed. Thank you, sir.

Richard Klinar: Next item on the agenda, B.A. #13-2011 2003 West Erie Ave. Variance
requested to allow fence two feet from public right-of-way on corner lot. Section 1125.04
( E ) On corner lots no fence shall be erected within twenty feet of public right-of-way. R-1
Zoning Daniel and Amanda Mieras applicants.

Robert J. Gilchrist: Is the applicant present? State your name and address for the record,
please?

Daniel Mieras: Hi. Daniel Mieras 2003 West Erie Ave.
Robert J. Gilchrist: And you are requesting a variance – could you please express the
hardship that you are experiencing that you need this variance?

Daniel Mieras: Well we moved into the property, and we have two young children. We
want to put a fence up in our backyard. We want to put a swimming pool in our backyard,
and we are having lots of problems with people coming through our backyard. Prior to the
fence going up – there was a hedge all along the sidewalk, and along the back of our lot
along the driveway. Between the back left corner there was a spot left open for people to
cut right through. So it kills two birds with one stone. One – it seals off our back property,
and two allowing us to have the fence up for the swimming pool for our kids – it gives us
the safety for our kids in the backyard. We don’t have to worry about them in the
backyard- running around in the street or anything like that. The final thing is that we have
had two vehicles broken into, but this will seal off where we park our vehicles, and we
won’t have to worry about that.

Robert J. Gilchrist: Is this fence already up?

Daniel Mieras: Yes it is. When we took down the hedges – I assumed that because we
already had a fence prior – we were just replacing it with a privacy fence. When I came in
and pulled the pool permit – that is when we found out that we needed it, and I spoke with
him. We didn’t know you had to have – existing, but he said that no – once you take it
down you have to request a variance. So that is why we are doing it after the fact. In this
pictures – what it shows you is – from my front yard which is down by the corner of
Archwood and West Erie. The top picture shows you if you are looking right at my house-
you can see my truck on the right. Walking down the street you can see the truck, and then
it shows you pictures of the front of the fence – walking in front of my neighbors you can
see the fence facing back towards West Erie. The last page is across the street on West
Erie. Showing that there is no line of site issues. With that curve (how Archwood curves)
once you come off of our property. By the time you reach the back side of my house – its
almost like you are on a different street – it’s that big of a curve. So it doesn’t cause any
issues there.

Robert J. Gilchrist: We appreciate you supplying pictures. Any questions or comments
from the board?

Dr. Ramirez: Is this fence a six foot fence? Was the hedge six foot?

Daniel Mieras: The hedge was seven foot, and this fence is six foot.

Dr. Ramirez: And you have no complaints from the neighbors?

Daniel Mieras: No actually my neighbor’s are in support of it. There are no problems with
them. I asked them before I put it up.

Kenneth Kramer: I so approve B.A. #13-2011.
Robert J. Gilchrist: Is there support?

Mrs. Wrice: I second it.

Robert J. Gilchrist: Proper motion to approve the variance for 2003 West Erie Ave.
Questions on the motion? Questions? There being none – all those in favor?

Board Members: Aye.

Robert J. Gilchrist: Opposed have the same right. Motion passed. Thank you, sir.

Richard Klinar: The next item on the agenda, B.A. #14-2011 3624 Temple Ave. Variance
requested to erect fence within one foot of property line. Section 1125.04 ( B ) No fence
shall be erected closer than one foot to property line without neighbor’s permission. R-1B
Zoning Jerry Siss applicant.

Robert J. Gilchrist: If you could state your name and address for the record please.

Jerry Siss: Jerry Siss 3624 Temple Ave.

Robert J. Gilchrist: 3624 or 3426?

Jerry Siss: 3624.

Robert J. Gilchrist: We have a typo in our agenda. You are requesting a variance a
variance Mr. Siss.

Jerry Siss: Yes. I have an existing chain link fence across the back of my property, and
down my property, but not within twelve inches. It is rusting now, and I would like to
replace it with a vinyl privacy fence. The house behind me the owner has died, and the
house is now empty. I would just like to – it’s time to replace the fence, and if I have to
move the fence in twelve inches – I have garden all across the back. I would have to dig
out the whole garden, and replant it. I talked to the prior owner before he passed away.
That is why the house is empty. He had no problem at that point of time. I just want to
replace an existing fence – with a vinyl fence.

Robert J. Gilchrist: So your neighbor that is adjacent.

Jerry Siss: Behind me, yes.

Robert J. Gilchrist: Behind you. This house is now unoccupied?

Jerry Siss: Yes. It is supposedly in foreclosure. I have called his son – his son referred me
to his brother who has Power of Attorney for his Mother, and he was going to talk to his
Mother – his Mother had no problem. I requested written permission so that I can give it to
my fence contractor, and he called me back and said that his attorney advised him not to
sign anything since the house is in foreclosure.

Robert J. Gilchrist: Any questions or comments from the board? You have the duty to
entertain a motion? Are there any comments from the public? Entertain a motion?

Dr. Ramirez: I move to approve the variance requested to erect a fence one foot from
property line – the white vinyl fence.

Jerry Siss: I am sorry I couldn’t hear you.

Dr. Ramirez: I am sorry. Move to accept the variance requested to erect the white vinyl
fence within one foot of property line. Is that the same location you have the fence now?

Jerry Siss: Yes.

Dr. Ramirez: Do you have a time frame for getting that done?

Jerry Siss: No. I had to wait to hear if I could get the variance. I do have a contractor in
fact the same one Mr. Kramer had. We will give you sixty days to take care of this. As part
of this motion. You have sixty days to complete the project.

Robert J. Gilchrist: Is there support for this motion?

Kenneth Kramer: Support.

Robert J. Gilchrist: It’s been properly motioned to approve the variance at 3624 Temple
Ave. with the applicable conditions. Questions on the motion? Questions? There being
none all those in favor?

All Board Members: Aye.

Robert J. Gilchrist: Opposed have the same right. Motion passed. Thank you, sir.

Richard Klinar: Next item on the agenda, B.A. #15-2011 4530 Washington Ave.
Variance requested to install pool six feet from house. Section 1129.06 ( B ) Pools shall
not be within ten feet of principle structure. R-1B Zoning John Ceol applicant.

Robert J. Gilchrist: Is the applicant..if you could state your name and address for the
record, please.

John Ceol: My name is John Ceol 4530 Washington Ave.

Robert J. Gilchrist: You are requesting a variance there must be a hardship ; if you could
explain.
John Ceol: I had an existing pool that was built in 1986. At that time, I was allowed to put
it six foot from the house. And that is where it was when I took it down in 2009. That is
why I am asking if I can put one back in that spot. To redo it – because I have a deck
around, and the fence is already there. I need to get approval for this. (Inaudible) back of
the house and this area at the corner it’s six foot, and then it goes farther away as it goes
around. Off to the one side there was (inaudible) the Building Inspector when I had my
foundation put in for the deck (inaudible) outside carpentry put on it back in the 90’s.
(Inaudible). That’s where its been for twenty years, and I have never had a problem with it.

Robert J. Gilchrist: Any questions or comments from the board? Any questions or
comments from the general public? Any concerns from your direct neighbors?

John Ceol: No. They told me that they got the letters, but they have no problem for it.

Robert J. Gilchrist: There being no questions; entertain a motion?

Mrs. Wrice: I make a motion that the variance be accepted at 4530 Washington Ave.

Kenneth Kramer: I would like to make an amendment to that for sixty day construction
completion.

Robert J. Gilchrist: Are you?

John Ceol: I just wanted to make sure that I could do this.

Robert J. Gilchrist: The condition that they are putting on this is a sixty day completion
date. Okay.

Kenneth Kramer: End of summer.

John Ceol: I can probably get a better price right now.

Robert J. Gilchrist: Okay the motion has been properly supported. Questions? There
being none – all those in favor?

All Board Members: Aye.

Robert J. Gilchrist: Opposed have the same right. Motion passed. Thank you, sir.

Richard Klinar: Next item on the agenda BA #16-2011 3221 Oberlin Ave. Variance
requested to allow four wall signs totaling sixty-three square feet. Sec. 1191.12 (B) Each
business shall be permitted one flat wall sign. B-3 Zoning Mike Serdinak applicant.

Robert J. Gilchrist: Could you please state your name and address for the record please.
Jim Ptacek : Yes, good morning. Jim Ptacek with Larson Architects. We are the project
manager for the (inaudible) on Oberlin Ave.

Robert J. Gilchrist: You are requesting a variance could you express the hardship for the
need for that variance, please?

Jim Ptacek: Certainly, the existing store (it should be in the packet that was supplied to
you) had signage on three sides of the building at present. The total square footage for the
signage as existing is about one hundred and twenty-five square feet. Part of this remodel
they are trying to tone down and improve the look. So get a net reduction in the signage to
about half of that (about sixty-four square foot of signage). But in this case again we are
requesting that we maintain signs on three sides of the building at this point.

Larson Architect Representative: I can show everybody – this would be the front
elevation of the building. There would a sign here, here on the one side. Then on the
what’s called the non-drive thru side – which is the side over here. This is the side of going
around the building. On the drive-thru side this is the elevation (inaudible). We had a sign
there. So we will maintain three sides of the building with what we currently have. I think
the overall net reduction – reducing it about fifty percent. On the west side – with the
remodel.

Dr. Ramirez: Now with the signage, (inaudible) That’s what it is. Is that new signage or
new (inaudible)

Jim Ptacek: It’s a different. It’s a new sign, but it replaced what was there. What this is –
it’s called brand wall and (inaudible) All you have on it is – it’s finished in stone. Part of
the remodel (inaudible) Actually this is on the rear of the building. That’s what this is – on
the drive-thru side. I am sorry – take that back. No you are right this is on the drive-thru
side. We are taking this off, and putting that in it’s place.

Dr. Ramirez: So there is no change in lighting or luminous…

Jim Ptacek: That’s correct. What we are replacing is again – overall square footage.

Dr. Ramirez: I am just worried about (inaudible)

Jim Ptacek: No. That’s correct there will not be any. Actually all the signage will be
switched over to LED. More control with that as well.

Dr. Ramirez: I don’t want to keep anyone up with your sign.

Jim Ptacek: With the remodel, and a major re-investment Mr. Payne is putting in here. It’s
a commitment to the City that it will be here for a long time. This building will be brought
up to current standards, and will be state of the art. We are going to be doing a whole look
at the entire facility to serve our customers. We are going to have a really nice McDonald’s
when it’s done.
Kenneth Kramer: Time of construction?

Jim Ptacek: As soon as we can our permits – we are going to get started right away. We
should probably be (inaudible) Once we get our approval. We will see to it that we can get
this done (inaudible)

Robert J. Gilchrist: Any questions? Comments?

Chief Brown: I would so move to accept.

Kenneth Kramer: Support.

Robert J. Gilchrist: Before we do that; any questions or comments from the general
public? We have some guests. There being none it’s been properly motioned and supported
to approve the variance at 3221 Oberlin Ave. Questions on the motion? There being none
all those in favor?

Board Members: Aye.

Robert J. Gilchrist: Opposed have the same right. Motion passed. Thank you.

Richard Klinar: The next item on the agenda B.A. #17-2011 943 Highland Park Blvd.
Variance requested to erect shed 110 square feet over allowable accessory square footage.
Section 1129.05 (D-1) Private garages or other accessory buildings may not exceed 576
square feet total. R-1 Zoning Lawrence Krupp applicant.

Robert J. Gilchrist: Is the applicant present. If you could state your name and address for
the record, please.

Lawrence Krupp: Lawrence Krupp 943 Highland Park Blvd.

Robert J. Gilchrist: Thank you. If you express your need for this variance.

Lawrence Krupp: I have a twenty foot existing pad next to my garage, and I wish to put
up a storage shed. I had letters submitted from all of my neighbors that there was no
problem erecting this storage shed. When I first put my garage and everything else there I
wanted to put up a three car garage, and the City said that I couldn’t because of the same
ordinance here. So I built a 24’ x 24’ garage. To make room for cars ( I buy classic cars to
restore) I put the twenty foot pad next to my garage. Now all of the stuff I have in my
garage I have to move my lawn mowers into the shed. That’s my reason for wanting to put
up a storage shed in this area.

Kenneth Kramer: Type of shed?
Lawrence Krupp: I submitted pictures. It’s a three thousand dollar shed from (inaudible).
Wooden shed – I had it stained to match the garage. Mr. Gilchrist was kind of enough to
come over and look at the area, and see if he thought there would be a problem with it. He
did not express any negative thoughts (inaudible)

Robert J. Gilchrist: I was going to wait until I left to express any negative thoughts. I
didn’t want to do it while I was there.

Kenneth Kramer: You maintain your property very well I have been by there.

Lawrence Krupp: Thank you.

Kenneth Kramer: I make a motion to support this B.A. #17-2011 Time of construction?
How long?

Lawrence Krupp: Monday.

Kenneth Kramer: Sixty days for completion.

Lawrence Krupp: They have everything all I have to do is tell them that I have the
variance, and they will come and construct the shed.

Dr. Ramirez: I second.

Robert J. Gilchrist: The motion to approve the variance at 943 Highland Park Blvd. You
did say that. Questions on the motion? You did say that you checked with your neighbors,
and they didn’t have any issues?

Lawrence Krupp: Yeah they all submitted letters from each neighbor (on all three sides)
that none of them had a problem with it. Then the City sent the letters that they had the
right to show up today, and voice any concerns that they had. They all told us they weren’t
coming down.

Robert J. Gilchrist: Any questions or comments from the Board? Questions or comments
from the public? There being none; all those in favor?

Board Members: Aye.

Robert J. Gilchrist: Opposed have the same right. Motion passed. Thank you, sir.

Richard Klinar: Next item on the agenda, B.A. #18-2011 1525 N. Lakeview Blvd.
Variance requested to allow an addition twenty feet from rear lot line. Section 1147.05 (D)
Minimum rear yard depth is thirty-five feet. R-1 Zoning Jacqueline Kay Root applicant.

Robert J. Gilchrist: If you could state your name and address for the record please.
Jacqueline Root: I am Jacqueline Root and my address is 1525 N. Lakeview Blvd.

Robert J. Gilchrist: And you are requesting a variance? Could you give us the hardship in
which you are experiencing that you would need this variance.

Jacqueline Root: The way the lot (inaudible) I would only have five feet to build up to the
back of my house to build a small addition. I would like to go within twenty feet of the
back lot line.

Robert J. Gilchrist: Your reason for wanting to do that is for more space or?

Jacqueline Root: Yes.

Robert J. Gilchrist: Questions or comments from the Board? Let it be noted that we have
received a letter that is against approval for this variance. I don’t know if Mr. Klinar…

Dr. Ramirez: I don’t know if it’s against approving it or not.

Mr. Klinar: Yeah – I think the woman next door was informed that there was going to be
a fence built, and I think that is what she is opposing according to the letter, but I don’t
know…Is there going to be a fence as well with us or?

Jacqueline Root: Yes the fence is already going up, and it’s within code. One foot off of
the property line.

Robert J. Gilchrist: Well let me share with the board because this letter the first sentence
says regarding the variance “I am against it”. So I am sharing this with the board.

Chief Brown: The only question I had is the letter is in objection to a fence, and the
variance is actually for an addition.

Robert J. Gilchrist: And again I am just sharing with you the correspondence that we
have. So if there could be an explanation; is there a fence going along with this addition?

Jacqueline Root: Yes. I purchased the lot next to my property. I already had an existing
fence on the east side of my current property, and then I added on to the extra lot. The new
fence is going to go along the back of the new lot up along the side of the neighbor’s
property line and across my fence. On the back side it is a foot off the property and on the
east side of the property it is three feet off the property line.

Robert J. Gilchrist: So would that require an additional variance?

Richard Klinar: No. She is within the ordinance.

Robert J. Gilchrist: Okay.
Mrs. Wrice: My question is; is the new fence going to be taller than the old one?

Jacqueline Root: No actually we are reusing the old fence – it’s six feet. In the back it’s
six feet.

Robert J. Gilchrist: I think I understand. This letter is against the fence that is not being
in front of the board. It’s within our ordinances so she has no need for a variance for a
fence. So this letter is irrelevant as it relates to this variance. The variance that we are
entertaining here is to allow an addition. Is that correct?

Jacqueline Root: That is correct.

Robert J. Gilchrist: The new addition looks as if it’s shaded.

Dr. Ramirez: Okay. So it’s for the addition, and not the fence.

Jacqueline Root: The addition will be five feet off of the garage. There will be no conflict
there.

Kenneth Kramer: I move to accept the variance B.A. #18-2011 and the completion date
is sixty days.

Jacqueline Root: I don’t think at this point – I still have to consult an Architect to get the
plans drawn up more specifically. The Architect will do those, but we have to work with
the roof lines. It is a hip roof, and there are some issues with getting the new addition to fit
into the roof line. I don’t think sixty days for completion would be enough amount of time.

Kenneth Kramer: How many days?

Jacqueline Root: I was thinking maybe one hundred and twenty. To just be sure that it is
finished. The contractor is a very small company, and he mostly does the majority of the
work himself.

Kenneth Kramer: Is it possible in December?

Jacqueline Root: I don’t think that it will take that long, but I just wanted to be safe in
case we run into any problems. If there were a problem what would I need to do?

Chief Brown: Mr. Klinar – a clarification – once the permit is pulled for an addition how
long is the permit good for?

Richard Klinar: The permit is valid for six months.

Kenneth Kramer: Alright then we will go with six months.

Jacqueline Root: So it was just for the permit to be pulled in sixty days?
Robert J. Gilchrist: No I think what we are saying is that your permit trumps any
condition that we would put on. So we can’t make a condition that is less than what your
permit is going to allow.

Jacqueline Root: Okay.

Kenneth Kramer: Then why do we tie sixty days to fences?

Richard Klinar: It’s up to the Board.

Kenneth Kramer: Oh, okay. Alright where are we..

Robert J. Gilchrist: I think we are in the middle of approving it or not approving it.

Kenneth Kramer: Then move along here.

Robert J. Gilchrist: Is there support?

Mrs. Wrice: I will second it.

Robert J. Gilchrist: It’s been properly motioned and supported to approve the variance at
1525 N. Lakeview Blvd. Questions on the motion? Questions on the motion? There being
none all those in favor?

Board Members: Aye.

Robert J. Gilchrist: Opposed have the same right. Motion passed. Thank you.

Richard Klinar: Last item on the Board of Appeals, B.A.#19-2011 1510 Kansas Ave. Use
variance requested to allow for a Wind Turbine to be located at 1510 Kansas Ave. Section
1171.04 Wind Turbines are not a conditionally allowable use in an I-1 District. I-1 Zoning
Robert Pawlik applicant for Emerson Network Power.

Robert J. Gilchrist: State your name and address for the record please.

Robert Pawlik: Robert Pawlik 1510 Kansas Ave.

Robert J. Gilchrist: We have discussed this conditional use, and I would assume your
hardship is the same as for the conditional use.

Robert Pawlik: It would be (inaudible) zoned an I-1 district, and business. We are asking
for the variance and a conditional permit to (inaudible).

Robert J. Gilchrist: Questions or comments from the board for the conditional use.
Kenneth Kramer: The question I have is that after the usage of this wind turbine; will it
be taken down? Or will it be used for all times?

Robert Pawlik: No, I don’t think it will be permanently used all times. What we want to
do is after the marketing and sell them in the field (inaudible). Try to correct the issues
here. (Inaudible). It would be basically sitting – if there are no problems in the field and
there are no problems then we can take it down.

Robert J. Gilchrist: We may have a point of clarification Mr. Klinar?

Richard Klinar: Yes. The ordinance requires that if it becomes inoperable or incapable of
repair then it has to be taken down per Ordinance. The City will allow them a certain
amount of time to take it down. A reasonable amount time once it becomes inoperable.

Kenneth Kramer: And the reasonable amount of time is?

Robert J. Gilchrist: Six months.

Richard Klinar: Six months.

Kenneth Kramer: Six months. I have no problem with this. If you decide to move to
Georgia, and leave a windmill here.

Chief Brown: At the appropriate time I would (inaudible) to support Emerson is a
(inaudible) Everything they have done on the campus has been beautiful so I can assume
that this would be an addition to that.

Kenneth Kramer: Support.

Robert J. Gilchrist: It has been properly motioned and supported to approve the variance
at 1510 Kansas Ave. Questions on the motion? There being none – all those in favor?

Board Members: Aye.

Robert J. Gilchrist: Opposed have the same right. Motion passed. Thank you. There
being no further items to discuss.

Kenneth Kramer: I would like to make a motion to postpone the August meeting.

Robert J. Gilchrist: Is there support of that motion?

Mrs. Wrice: I second.

Robert J. Gilchrist: It’s been properly motioned to recess the Board of Zoning Appeals
for the month of August. All those in favor?
Board Members: Aye.

Robert J. Gilchrist: Opposed have the same right. Motion passed. There being no further
items to discuss this meeting of Board of Zoning Appeals now adjourned time is 9:50.



                              Planning Commission

Mayor Anthony Krasienko: Call this meeting of Lorain County Commissions to order.
Mr. Klinar could you take the roll?

Richard Klinar: Mr. Kramer.

Kenneth Kramer: Here.

Richard Klinar: Mrs. Wrice.

Mrs. Wrice: Present.

Richard Klinar: Dr. Ramirez

Dr. Ramirez: Here.

Richard Klinar: Mr. Gilchrist.

Robert J. Gilchrist: Here.

Richard Klinar: Mayor Krasienko.

Mayor Anthony Krasienko: Here.

Richard Klinar: Okay the only item on the agenda for Planning Commission –
Submission for Planning Commission recommendation of approval, to Lorain City
Council, amending Chapter 1173, I-2 Heavy Industrial District. Section 1173.03 ( E )
Omitting Bituminous Concrete Manufacturing Facilities, and Section 1173.04, to allow
Bituminous Concrete Manufacturing Facilities as a conditionally permissible use.
Submitted by Mayor Anthony Krasienko, City of Lorain.

Mayor Anthony Krasienko: Members of the commission over the past three years we
have had several companies approach the City of Lorain regarding locating an hot asphalt
plant within the City of Lorain. We have heard all the stories of how we are geographically
located, and the amount of asphalt work over the next few decades – its going to make it
strategic. We have been asked by no less than three different companies about locating
here. We really haven’t found any place that we thought was suitable and several that
wanted to locate down along the river which we have found totally unacceptable. Which is
why we have never brought to the commission. We had the latest one, and in that process
we have gone and visited asphalt plants. We have seen the new technology, and how they
have changed over the years. I think all of you are probably familiar with the former
asphalt plant which is Stoneco , and how bad to put it mildly was a fiasco. Mostly because
of the type of aggregate they used, and the technology at that time, and the temperatures
they heated the asphalt to. Really EPA regulations that allowed a larger or a more
(inaudible) to be omitted from the plant. Over the past almost two decades now – since that
plant has been gone the EPA regulations have changed dramatically. The technology of
asphalt mix has changed. They are going back to a lower temperature which lowers the
(inaudible) they run through wet scrubbers. Their omissions; in fact the two asphalt plants
that myself, Mr. Gilchrist, and the members of Council have visited when it’s operating
you stand next to it, and the only time you smell asphalt is when they load the truck. So the
smell of asphalt really comes from the asphalt being in the back of an open bed truck with
a cover over it. Specifically we have looked at the one down in the Flats in Cleveland, and
I think it’s in Brook Park; right off of 480 by the Airport. It’s operated by the Shelly
Company.

Robert J. Gilchrist: Also the one out by Sandusky.

Mayor Anthony Krasienko: Also Erie out by Sandusky which is in a middle of a mine.
So it doesn’t really matter out there. The one by the Airport is more significant because it’s
surrounded by residential area. Which is something we really want to see. I went to the
Law Department to see what restrictions we could put on this as far as the distance from
residential, and they kind of threw it back at me – and said to provide us with some
information of whether towns that have done setbacks for asphalt plants. (Inaudible) A line
that would stipulate fifteen hundred foot setback to a residentially zoned use. British
Columbia calls for a nine hundred and eighty-four thousand foot setback which seems very
close. New York ended up with an eighteen hundred foot separation. Actually there now
that eighteen hundred foot separation appears somewhat generous. The (inaudible) county
in Washington State actually had a half mile from actual residences. Which sounds like a
lot, but it’s just over twenty-six hundred feet for a half mile. Which is still a good distance,
but we looked at where our I-2 property is in the City of Lorain – where you would have
some distances. The two major areas that we have is the I-2 out on Baumhart Rd. and we
have some I-2 in the Colorado Industrial Park. Again I don’t feel that the Colorado Ave.
Industrial Park is the right place for it. Even though we have the Steel Plant right across the
river. I think we want to (and the good thing is that City of Lorain controls that land) we
have more of a technology park in mind for that area. Although we haven’t looked at
mining operations for the crushed limestone at that time. Looking at a Google map – they
are just under three quarters of a mile if you go to the furthest point in on the Industrial
Park away from the residences. Over in Baumhart Lorain Industrial Park where we have a
potential company looking to locate we are just around a mile from the residents going
west. Which would butt up to the furthest point of Deerfield. Then you have the Hunt Club
area in there, and the strip Metropark land. So that area is pretty much non-residential, and
in the near and distant future it’s going to remain that way. I talked to Law ( and they are
looking for it right now) but if the Plan Commission would consider recommending this to
City Council I would ask that we would insert a distance of three quarters of a mile from
any residentially zoned property. That gives us our greatest distance – I think we could
probably go up to seven eighths of a mile. I was using Google Earth which I also checked
through Engineering, and they were pretty confident that it was a little over a mile, but I
would hate to do something and then find out that we just changed it and zoned it
completely out of the City because we are just under a mile away. So the three quarter mile
really (inaudible) completely to Baumhart Rd. We had an auto manufacturing plant – with
a paint kitchen facility. And I don’t know if anyone’s ever been in a paint kitchen facility –
there is nothing that stinks more than a paint kitchen facility. As far as (inaudible) and the
chemicals they use. The accessibility to the turn pike and Rte. 2 makes it ideal, and there is
a couple of sites that are available there that two different companies have looked at. We
see it as an opportunity for economic development, as well as looking into developer’s
agreement – the opportunity for the City of Lorain to soften it’s prices on road repairs.
Which we definitely need to stretch our road repair dollars as far as we can. Also with our
repair – asphalt. So I would be happy to try to answer any questions I know that if the
Planning Commission would forward obviously City Council is going to have much larger
public debates about this, and in depth analysis. The company was going to come in and do
the whole presentation about the asphalt plants, and the different omissions, but I figured
rather than repeat that dog and pony show several times we would see where the Lorain
City Council considers and get a more thorough (inaudible) of all of the omissions. We
even considered inserting some of the EPA regulations, but Law felt is was just redundant.
If the EPA regulations get more stringent then you are now having to change our code
because it isn’t applicable. We all know that EPA codes are only going to get more
stringent, not less. So they recommended leaving those out. Does the Commission have
any questions, and I will answer them the best to my ability.

Kenneth Kramer: Is the area off of Baumhart?

Mayor Anthony Krasienko: Yes it is just south of the Ford Plant towards Rte 2.

Dr. Ramirez: I just have two things – the strategic plan that developed actually called for
that sort of business in that sort corridor. So that fits into the strategic plan nicely. The only
other issue that I have is – it’s really not about smell or anything like that. We’ve have
some really stinky years from the Steel Plant. It smells like rotten eggs every night. Is there
any problem with potential with explosion or fire? Are we going to need…is the Fire
Department located close enough to that facility – to be able to respond to it correctly.

Mayor Anthony Krasienko: I can tell you that their insurance rating is a ten out there,
and that is not good. If you are further than five miles from the Fire Station of course
Industrial facilities like these are fully sprinkled. I don’t know about the explosiveness of
asphalt tar. I know it will burn. I think with any industrial manufacturing there is always
that potential and possible.

Dr. Ramirez: That would be the reason for the setback I would think. (inaudible) If it goes
up – you’ve got time to respond, and it’s not going affect houses unless its sparking.
Mayor Anthony Krasienko: I know that the three quarter of a mile setback at least in my
mind (from what I have read) is more worried about odor (inaudible) into neighborhoods.
Which is really generally the biggest complaint. Stoneco we did have a problem with
noise. Again – three quarters of a mile in a wooded area deadens a lot of noise. We already
had an automotive manufacturing there. Chief?

Chief Brown: We are obviously researching it because we have a whole in our ISO rating
on the far west side. Hopefully we can mediate some little issues in the not so distant
future. I can do some research on asphalt plants, but I think with the EPA being so strict on
things right now, and the new technology (inaudible). I don’t have a vote on this Planning
Commission, but I feel that this should at least go to the next step so that it can be properly
discussed and debated.

Kenneth Kramer: I so move to accept.

Mayor Anthony Krasienko: Would you be so kind to add the (to have Law) draft in
language for the three quarter mile setback?

Kenneth Kramer: Addendum to have a three quarter mile setback. (inaudible)

Mayor Anthony Krasienko: Support?

Dr. Ramirez: I will second.

Richard Klinar: Residential district?

Mayor Anthony Krasienko: From residential. Any questions or comments?

Robert J. Gilchrist: I do have one question – is this to send these two as examples down
to Council for further discussion?

Mayor Anthony Krasienko: Well they are will get this information and probably a four
inch binder thick of additional information. This is just to recommend an amendment to the
zoning code to allow bituminous concrete manufacturing in an I-2 as a conditional
permissible use. Any further questions?

Dr. Ramirez: On a side note – how many jobs? Are they looking at?

Mayor Anthony Krasienko: You are probably looking at twenty to thirty maximum –
it’s like everything else as technology replaces people. Again it’s using an Industrial area
and a major Industrial Highway for what it meant to be used for. Thank you for throwing
in the strategic plan – because it does falls in with that as well.

Dr. Ramirez: Yes. It fits the bill.

Mayor Anthony Krasienko: Any members of the general public?
Richard Klinar: Just a reminder – all this is – is to change our ordinance to allow these as
a conditional use. Once this makes it through Council – that company will still have to
come back to this Board to get their conditional to proceed forward with it. This is just to
change our ordinance.

Mayor Anthony Krasienko: We know because of the fiasco that happened in the South
Lorain we need to be as open and straight forward as we can. While putting in the proper
safe guards so that we don’t end up with that same condition again. Mr. Klinar could you
take the roll?

Richard Klinar: Well we have motion by Mr. Kramer – do you have a second yet?

Mrs. Wrice: Yes I did.

Richard Klinar: Roll vote – Mr. Kramer?

Kenneth Kramer: Yes.

Richard Klinar: Mrs. Wrice?

Mrs. Wrice: Yes.

Richard Klinar: Dr. Ramirez?

Dr. Ramirez: Yes.

Richard Klinar: Mr. Gilchrist?

Mr. Gilchrist: Yes.

Richard Klinar: Mayor Krasienko.

Mayor Anthony Krasienko: Yes.

Mayor Anthony Krasienko: There are no other items for the Planning Commission there
is a recess for August. Could we have motion to recess Planning Commission for the
month August?

Robert J. Gilchrist: So moved.

Mayor Anthony Krasienko: Unless something really good and juicy comes up.

Kenneth Kramer: I support to recess in the month of August.

Mayor Anthony Krasienko: It’s been supported. Any questions? All those in favor?
Board Members: Aye.

Mayor Anthony Krasienko: Opposed? Motion carried. No further business in Planning
Commission this meeting is adjourned.

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:46
posted:4/26/2014
language:Korean
pages:21