Laserfiche WebLink
4 <br />? . <br />? <br />I. ROLL CALL: <br />CITY OF NORTH OLMSTED <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MINUTES - FEBRUARY 12, 1991 <br />Chairman Gorris called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. <br />Present: M. Betts, T. Morgan, L. Orlowski, A. Skoulis, J. Thomas, and <br />B. Gorris <br />Absent: R. Bowen <br />Also Present: Assistant Law Director Dubelko, City Engineer Deichmann, <br />Building Commissioner Conway, and Clerk of Comnissions Oring. <br />II. REVIEtid AND CORRECTION OF MINUTES: <br />J. Thomas moved to approve the Minutes of January 22, 1991 as written, <br />seconded by M. Betts, and unanimously approved. <br />III. &JILDING DEPA&TMIIVT REQUESTS: <br />1) Carter Plaza West, property Tocated between Gastown Gas Station and First <br />Federal of Lakewood (in front of Best's). <br />Proposal to construct retail building. <br />? Heard by Architectural Board of Review January 16, 1991. <br />(Tabled from meeting of January 22, 1991). <br />Mr. Gorris questioned if, since this is all one parcel and a variance is <br />needed to split the property, the developer would consider leasing the <br />parcel. Mr. Thomas is concerned that approving this could be setting a <br />precedent since there are many narrow, deep lots along Lorain Road which could <br />be subdivided in this manner. Mr. Acciarri, the architect representing Carter <br />Plaza, stated that the developer had considered a lease, but considering that <br />Best Products had filed for bankruptcy, his attorney had advised against it. <br />Mr. Gorris had stated that originally he believed that this was a separate lot <br />but since variances must be granted for both lots, he has a problem with <br />creating two non-conforming parcels. Assistant Law Director Dubelko pointed <br />out that the Commission could not approve the lot split, they could only <br />approve the building. He further stated that under these conditions, the <br />Planning Comnission would not have to be concerned atiout what Best Products <br />would be willing to do, they could requir.e whatever was needed from Best. Mr. <br />Acciarri pointed out that the developer had complied with all of the <br />Commissions.request regarding the western portion of the Best pa.rking lot. <br />Mr. Thomas agreed that the developer had been cooperative, but since this was <br />all one property, he could not approve this building without seeing the entire <br />parcel all of which is not shown. He prefers th3t a variance be granted <br />before the building is approved and also questioned if there were easements on <br />the property for the driveways. Mr. Acciarri stated that the easements were <br />in place Lmder the purchase agreement. It was pointed out that since Best has <br />applied for bankruptcy any agreement they have would have to be approved by <br />qp the Bankruptcy Court. Since this is one property, Mr. Orlowski stated that <br />1