06/25/1991 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

a approve the proposal to construct two additions and exterior renovations to an pxisting building for Stylin' Concepts at 29919 Lorain Road, with the exception that there will be no back lit neon strip along the canopy above the building, and also that the developer is not required to paint his fence white because of the ma.intenance problems that we foresee, all other recommendations of the A.R.B. would be incorporated in the plan as well as any recomnendations of this Commissions. At this point Mr. Case advised that he would eliminate the plexiglass strip on the canopy entirely, not just the lighting. Building Commissioner Conway also advised that variances would be required for the unimproved surface of the parking lot, the canopy projection in the 50 foot front setback, and a special permit would be required for an addition to the non-conforming structure. Mr. Thomas questioned if the Commission should make recommendations to the Board of Zoning Appeals. After some discussion it was decided to make recomnendations to the B.Z.A. in a separate motion. Mr. Thomas amended his motion to read: "subject to the variances being granted by the B.Z.A. The motion was seconded by T. Morgan, and unanimously approved. J. Thomas moved that the Commission make recommendations to the B.Z.A. concerning the variances requested by Stylin' Concepts; these recommendations would be that they favorably consider the setback vaxiance as well as the non-conforming building variance, but we recommend that they reject the variance for the tinimproved gravel parking area, seconded by T. Morgan. Mr. Case questioned this because this area would be used only for employee parking. He pointed out.that there is a cost factor involved, and explained that if he could afford to asphalt it he would. Mr. Thomas explained that there are a rnunber of developments which have maintained gravel, either because they are grandfathered in or because they have received a variance, these buildings often go through a change of use and then the gravel area can become a nu.isance under a subsequent owner, with dust and gravel being kicked up and people getting hurt, etc. He believed that these problems should be taken care of as the proposals are approved. He does not believe that an economic hardship would be enough to justify that kind of a variance. Mr. Kazmarcek questioned if it would be enough of a justification to have the biiilding remain as is for the next 5 years without any improvements. Mr. Morgan pointed out that they were only making recommendations to the B.Z.A. and these arguments should be made to them. After some discussion Mr. Gorris suggested that a time limit could be stipulated, perhaps 12 months, in which they could complete the paving but it was decided that this should not to be part of the motion, that would be up to the B.Z.A. Roll call on motion: Thomas, Morgan, Bowen, and Skoulis, yes. Mr. Gorris, no. Motion carriedo 2) Predota Flooring, 29369 Lorain Rd. Proposal to construct a garage. Heard by Architectural Board of Review June 19, 1991. Mr. Predota presented the plans. The Architectural Board had suggested that the existing garage be demolished and one building be constructedo Building Commissioner Conway stated that he had advised the A.R.B. that if they combined the 2 garages which would actually contain two separate uses (residential and commercial) fire separation would be required which was why the Architectural had merely made this a suggestion, not a stipulation. Mr. Predota stated this would not be economically possible and further, that because he had a french drain, they would have to change the location of the building, and that would interfere with their view from their deck (their living quarters are in the rear). Mr. Conway explained that the Architectural Board had been concerned 2