CITY OF HIGHLAND HEIGHTS
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
HELD: NOVEMBER 10, 2003

SUBJECT: SAMUEL GOLDSHTEIN, 638 RADFORD DRIVE
PZ03030 VARIANCE TO DRIVEWAY REQUIREMENTS

This matter was first heard at a Public Hearing held on October 13, 2003. At that time the Commission tabled the matter until the meeting scheduled for October 27, 2003 pending submittal by the applicant of an accurate site plan. The Public Hearing scheduled for October 27, 2003 was not held because the applicant did not appear.

Public Hearing was called to order at 8:12 p.m. Notices of this Public Hearing were mailed in accordance with Section 1113.04.

The variance was changed during the course of the Public Hearing to the following:

Samuel Goldshtein, homeowner, 638 Radford Drive, appeared before the Commission to obtain a variance to driveway requirements for the expansion of the existing driveway.

Chairman Mastrangelo advised the applicant of his right to be represented by an attorney. The applicant waived that right.

Mr. Goldshtein stated that he does not have enough sideyard clearance to allow a 16 foot x 18 foot driveway turnaround as allowed by Code. He said that he is requesting a variance to allow a driveway extension with dimensions of 9 feet x 32 feet, or 288 square feet, which is the same area as permitted with the standard driveway turnaround of 16 feet x 18 feet.

Mr. Goldshtein stated that he wants to expand the driveway in order to be able to back out from the garage, turn around and then pull out forward; however, he said that the proposed expansion will not be wide enough to allow him to back out and turn around in one pass.

In response to Mr. Silbiger’s inquiry as to how close the proposed expansion will be from the public sidewalk, Mr. Goldshtein replied seven feet and six inches (7’6”).

Chairman Mastrangelo and Mrs. Murphy requested that the applicant consider reducing the length of the proposed driveway addition from thirty feet (30’) to twenty-four feet (24’). Mrs. Murphy stated that the proposed variance is excessive. Mr. Goldshtein replied that he would prefer a length of thirty feet (30’) but would accept the Commission’s decision.

Mr. Granito stated that his own driveway has a pad with dimensions of 9 feet x 18 feet and that he believes that the applicant’s request is excessive.

Mrs. Murphy stated that she drove past the applicant’s house on three (3) occasions and on two (2) of those times there were cars parked on the grass while the driveway was empty. She informed the applicant that it is a violation of Code to park on the grass in the front yard. She said that the traffic on the applicant’s street was minimal and that there is no curve in front of the applicant’s house. In response to Mrs. Murphy’s inquiry if the applicant had considered widening the driveway from sixteen feet (16’) to twenty feet (20’) as allowed by Code, the applicant replied that the driveway would not look good because there would be a strip of new concrete on both sides of the old driveway.

Building Commissioner Jamieson confirmed that it is a violation of our Code to park on the grass and that parking is allowed in the driveway and garage only.

Mr. Goldshtein replied that the reason he parks on the grass is to keep the driveway clear so that his wife can back out of the garage.

Chairman Mastrangelo stated that the consensus for the new variance request is to reduce the back length of the proposed addition from thirty feet (30’) to twenty-four feet (24’) and to reduce the length of the addition where it meets the existing driveway from thirty-two feet (32’) to twenty-six feet (26’). He said that the variance would be contingent upon the proposed addition starting no closer than fourteen feet (14’) from the public sidewalk right-of-way.

Mr. Granito stated that the applicant must curb the back of the new driveway addition.

Mr. Silbiger stated that the applicant has not provided any reasons to support a variance for a driveway turnaround. He said that the intended purpose of a driveway turnaround is to improve safety on a dangerous road and that the applicant does not live on a highly trafficked road.

Chairman Mastrangelo recommended that the proposed project be considered as a widening of the driveway. He said that the applicant would need a variance of five feet (5’) from the permitted driveway width of twenty feet (20’) for a length of twenty-four (24’) feet and tapering to twenty-six feet (26’) at the driveway. He stated that this would allow the applicant to widen the existing sixteen foot (16’) wide driveway by nine feet (9’) for a total width of twenty-five feet (25’).

Public Hearing opened to the public. No one spoke.

Public Hearing closed at 8:25 p.m.

________________________________

Susan M. Olson, Recording Clerk

________________________________

Robert J. Mastrangelo, Chairman