09/11/1990 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

remove the arcade canopy which is between the east and west buildings in order to open up visibility to arcade area and Plaza South, explaining that from a distance this canopy gives the illusion that there is a store front in that area. This proposal will also fit in with their signage since the Board of Zoning Appeals granted variances on the condition that the two tenants with signage on that canopy cobld not be on the new signs unless these signs were removed. Marshall's has agreed, but Kronheims ha.ve not, but the owners do have the right to remove the canopy under their lease agreement. Removing this section of the canopy is also part of the future renovation plan for the entire shopping center. He clarified that the canopy would be wrap around to meet the arcade canopies an either side. The directory board in this area will remain and is non-illuminated at present and will be addressed in the renovation plans. It was decided this proposal would be sent to the Architectural Board of Review, but unless they made substantial changes, it would not have to come back to the Commission. R. Bierman moved to refer the proposal to demolish the arcade canopy and signage at Great Northern Plaza North. as presented to the Architectural Review Board with the notation that the proposal will be referred to the BZD without returning to the Planning Coirunission tmless the Architectural Board makes material changes to the plan, seconded by J. Thomas, and unani.mously approved. Mr. Thomas mentioned to Mr. Papandreas that there is no warning sign that.incoming traffic does not stop at the Brookpark Road entrance. Mr. Papandreas responded that this work should be completed within the next weeka 4) North Olmsted Home Care Center, 29794 Lorain Road. Proposal to construct an addition and a deck. The proposal had been withdrawn by the developer. 5) Brendan Lane Shopping Center, 23609 to 23657 Lorain Rd. Proposal to construct building. (Variance granted May 2, 1990). G. Draeger, Architect, explained that this.proposal had been before Planning Commission previously and was referred to the Board of Zoning Appeals where a variance was granted to delete 1 loading dock. He explained that the size of the building has been reduced to make the parking eonform, two parking spaces have been landbanked.as suggested, and 2 handicapped spaces have been added. He pres2nted a site plan showing all the parcels and tfie adjacent.parcels as. requested. Mr._Orlowski suggested that the handicapped parking space.(next to: Domino's be relocated.closer to the existing ramp (in front of. beauty supply store). Mr. Draeger will look into this and further. advised. that the mechanicals on the roof would be hidden by the mansard and that the window on the east wall was not for a drive through tenant, but for a possible office tenant. Mr. Orlowski suggested that a raised planter be installed in the two landbanked parking spaces (triangular areas to be stripped). Mr. Conway advised that these parking spaces do conform, even though they would not work too well. Mr. Gorris suggested landbanking some more spaces. City Engineer Deichmarm suggested realigning the existing parking area, but Mr. Draeger does not believe that the awner would agree to this because the cost of tearing up asphalt would be excessive considering what he had to pay for the new lot. Mr. Orlowski questioned if the tow trucks parked in the rear for the car rental agency was allowed under the code; if the main disconnects on the rear of the building were well secured; and if the gas meters on the sidewalk in the front of the building should not be protected. In response, Building Conunissioner 3