CITY OF HIGHLAND HEIGHTS
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
HELD: JANUARY 26, 2004
| PRESENT: | Commissioners Kerr, Knezevic, Mastrangelo, Murphy, Silbiger; Recording Clerk Olson |
| ABSENT: | Building Commissioner Jamieson |
| SUBJECT: PZ03038 |
DISTEFANO’S DELI & RESTAURANT, 5600 HIGHLAND ROAD VARIANCES TO AREA, YARD, AND USE REGULATIONS |
Public Hearing was called to order at 8:00 p.m. Notices of this Public Hearing were mailed in accordance with Section 1113.04.
Variances are requested as follow:
John DiStefano, representing DiStefano’s Deli & Restaurant, 5600 Highland Road, appeared before the Commission to obtain six variances to area, yard, and use regulations for the proposed construction of a new restaurant at 5600 Highland Road.
Chairman Mastrangelo advised the applicant of his right to be represented by an attorney. The applicant waived that right.
Mr. DiStefano had submitted a deck design prior to the meeting. He said that the proposed outdoor deck will have dimensions of 25 feet by 36 feet, will seat thirty (30) people, and will have an emergency exit at the south end of the deck. He stated that the amount of greenspace is 19.33%. He said that he could possibly plant shrubs in the ground around the west and north sides of the deck to comply with the greenspace requirement of 20%.
Mr. DiStefano stated that he has eliminated 4 seats from the original plan and that he is now proposing seating for 86. He said that he may have to eliminate one additional booth at the northeast corner of the proposed restaurant in order to add an emergency exit door to the outside. He stated that he will discuss this matter further with Building Commissioner Jamieson. He said that there will be no public access from the proposed restaurant into the deli.
In response to Mrs. Murphy’s inquiry as to how far the deck will extend to the south, Mr. DiStefano replied that it will not extend past the south sidewalk.
Mr. DiStefano stated that there is 1,800 square feet of walkable floorspace in the existing deli. Mr. Silbiger and Mrs. Murphy agreed that the 87 parking spaces shown on the proposed plans are sufficient.
In response to Mrs. Murphy’s inquiry if separate parking allocations are required for both the deli and restaurant, Chairman Mastrangelo replied no because the variances will be contingent upon the parcels being consolidated prior to construction.
In response to Mr. Silbiger’s inquiry if there is any possibility that any of the proposed parking spaces will disappear, Mr. DiStefano no.
Mr. DiStefano stated that the existing garage located closest to Bishop Road will be demolished for parking space use.
Chairman Mastrangelo suggested that the applicant consider the addition of a sidewalk running north-south next to the deck for those customers parking in the rear to access the front entrance of the restaurant. Mr. DiStefano agreed that it was a good suggestion.
In response to Mrs. Murphy’s inquiry as to hours of operation, Mr. DiStefano replied weekdays 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., and weekends 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Mr. DiStefano stated that the hours will be good for the community and that his establishment focuses on food rather than the bar.
In response to Mrs. Murphy’s inquiry if eating or drinking will extend outside the parameters of the deck, Mr. DiStefano replied that no alcohol will be allowed to leave the premises. He said that he will have to apply for a revision to his liquor license to serve liquor outdoors. Mr. DiStefano stated that he hopes to start construction in the spring and open the restaurant late summer.
The Commissioners stated that the variances for front and side yard setbacks apply to the existing buildings on the applicant’s property, and that the proposed restaurant will not encroach further into the established setbacks.
Public Hearing opened to the public.
Anthony Cirino, 559 Bishop Road, stated that he owns the vacant parcel abutting the DiStefano property to the east where he stores trucks and tractors, and the parcel abutting the DiStefano property to the south which is used as his office (not currently used as a residence). He said that he is extremely opposed to the variances. He stated that the applicant’s property has been a quiet corner for a long time and he is opposed to turning it into a busy location. He said that the possibility exists that the applicant may stay open much longer since liquor can be served until 2:30 a.m. Mr. Cirino stated that he was ordered to erect a fence along his property line when DiStefano’s made changes to their parking lot, and he feels this was unfair. He said that he is upset that the hedges along his property line were cut down during the fire at the restaurant, causing his office to be visible from the applicant’s property. He said that he has owned his property since 1969, has complied with everything, and has never argued a variance. He stated that the Commission would be granting the applicant too much leeway by granting the variances and that he will take legal action if the proposed project is approved. He said that a ramshackled garage exists behind the deli that the applicant has never fixed. He stated that his property values will be affected by an unsightly dock and an outdoor deck that may be added to the applicant’s property. Mr. Cirino said that it costs him money every time the applicant undertakes a project.
The Commissioners showed the proposed plan to Mr. Cirino. Mr. Cirino stated that he opposes the plan because the exhaust from cars parked along the south property line will blow into his office, yard, and garage.
Mr. Knezevic stated that the Commission has an obligation to protect the welfare of adjacent property owners; however, the applicant is entitled to use his land which is non-conforming. Mr. Cirino replied that he is entitled to use his land that is also non-conforming.
Mr. Cirino stated that he does not want the applicant any closer than he currently is to his property and that he would expect him to erect a hedge or 7-foot high fence along the entire property line. He said that he is not opposed to progress but does not want any infringement on his property or privacy. He stated that most of his objections would be appeased if the applicant would erect a fence along the applicant’s south property line.
Chairman Mastrangelo referenced Section 1143.03 and stated that it would be the applicant’s responsibility to erect a 5 – 7 foot high solid fence along the property line that abuts Mr. Cirino’s property. Mr. Cirino said that he wants a 7-foot high fence. (Note: The requirement for a 5 -7 foot high solid fence is incorrect, per Section 1143.03. See Minutes of Regular Meeting of The Planning and Zoning Commission held January 26, 2004, where it is stated that the applicant is required to either comply with a 15 foot rear yard setback or erect a 5 – 7 foot high solid fence abutting a residential district. The applicant does comply with the rear yard setback requirement.)
Public Hearing closed at 8:37 p.m.
________________________________
Susan M. Olson, Recording Clerk
________________________________
Robert J. Mastrangelo, Chairman