01/10/1989 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. r f PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 10, 1989 PAGE 3 during the construction of the new building that originally was to be done in phases while they continued operation. Mr. Glueck, representing McDonaldTs explained that this building has been extended approximately 15 feet, is narrower, and because the basement has been eliminated, is more efficient. He advised that they will be no community room as previously planned. This building is their newest, 1989 building. The Commission is concerned because it would appear that they are crowding a larger building on this small site. Mr. Glueck advised that it would take about 2 weeks longer to build with a basement, that the landscaping would be basically the same (brick treatment originally planned for the tree lawn is not shown on the plan, but will be included); and that the building has been moved forward on the site. There is also concern that there will not be enough parking (a variance had been granted for one parking space). Mr. Glueck advised that during their peak hours only 36% of the seats.are occupied. Mr. Conway advised that 63 spaces are re- quired and they are providing 62. Councilman Wilamosky questioned why they were keeping their old pole sign with a new building. Mr. Conway stated that during the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting it was established that they were not changing the sign and no variance was required. It was pointed out that the McDonald's in Weslake has a ground sign because pole signs are not allowed, and Mr. Piorgan stated that North Olmsted has been considering disallowing pole signs, and would like the developer to consider a ground sign especially since this location is well known. T. Morgan moved to forward the McDonald's Restaurant proposal at 27322 Lorain Road to the Architectural Board of Review, the Safety Department, and Engineering Department and ask that the developer look at what could be done to eliminate the pole sign in keeping with what McDonald's has done in other communities, seconded by J. Thomas, and unanimously approved. 4) Plus Sizes, 26005 Great Northern Shopping Center #12. Proposal to renovate front of unit. Please Note: Developer is requesting permission to use this renovation as a prototype for all future reno- vations in the shopping center to eliminate returning for approval of each unit. Mr. Papandreas, representing Biskind Development Company, explained that they are dividing the former ponlevey`s unit and renovating the store - front by adding a 1 foot 6 inch masonry brick sill, adding a brick pier to divide the units and installing windows and doors with bronze frames. While planning this renovation he observed that there were a variety of door types, sill heights, frame types, etc. and they would now like to standardize these store fronts to-the proposed specifications. He pre- sented a plan of 5 possible vestibule entries with the proposed standard features. This criteria would be part of the contractural agreement with any new tenants and if the Commission were to approve the criteria. for the entire center, it would eliminate the lengthy apnroval process. He pointed out that if any tenant wished to deviate from the criteria, they would need approval of the owner and from the city. Mr. Morgan pointed out that this could be too uniform in such a large center and would like to see one or two units installed before considering a blanket approval. Mr, Thomas believed that such .an approval would require a change in the lawq Mra Papandreas stated that when the city approves a.new:.shu.pping center it is not necessary for each unit to get a separate approval. Mr. Conway agreed, In order to give this type of approval, Mr. Thomas.