03/10/1992 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

that the study would have to be completed before the proposal was referred to the Architectural Boaxd. J. Thomas moved that the Velvet Touch Auto Wash proposal be tabled until the next Planning Commission meeting where this will fit on .the agenda since the next meeting is for the study of the Ma.ster Plan, and in the meantime the developer should consult with the City Engineering Department to determine a quaiified traffic expert to advise on the internal traffic flow and circulation of their development and make recomQnendations for a minimal impact on traffic on.Dover ana. Lorain Roads, and that this plan must be reviewed by both the City Engineering and Safety Departments, seconded by T. Morgan. Mr. Barnett questioned if the Commission would approve:the plan that is suggested by the expert. Mr. Thomas stated that the Commission would like to see this lot improved, and hoped that they would agree with their expert. The motion was approved iman.i_mously. This proposal will return to the Commission on April 14th. 2) Barlo Plaza, 30572 Lorain Road Proposal to construct storage building in rear of plaza. Originally proposed with plans to construct an addition on April 10, 1990 and: withdrawn on June 8, 1990. Mr. Acciarri, architect, and Mr: Hayden, owner, explained plans for the 2,000 square foot wood frame storage building which is to be used exclusively for the PXisting tenants in the center. This building is smaller than the original ? building presented in 1990. At that time there were questions on the use of the r building which was not defined. The ceramic shop and Westlake Floors will.each use 600 square feet of this building and the balance will be used by the other :.? tenantse A letter ha.s been submitted to the Building Department stating the ' o intended use of the building. Building Comnissioner Conway stated that his original objection was polieing this storage structure which was not incorporated ? irito the building. At that time they were constructing an addition and he suggested including the storage area into the main building; the developer . withdrew the request for a storage building but constructed the addition. He has _ received a letter that the builcting is to be used in association with the tenants ? in the front. Mr. Acciarri explained that there is a 3 foot slope from the front . of the structvre to the rear, and if they added to the building there would be ? another 2 foot grade difference. Mr. Thomas stated that there was concern tha,t - this building could be used as retail in the future. Mr. Acciarri stated that an , occupancy permit would be needed to use this building as retail, and maintained that, because there was no exposure (to Lorain Road), the building would never be used as retail. Mr. Conway mainly objected to having a storage occupancy that is not associated with retail on that lot. This is a permitted use as presented. Owners do change, and it is necessary that when there is a tenant change in the front, he lnows that the area iui that structure is for that tenant. Mr. Skoulis questioned wily there is a problem with this building, when there is another building in the back. The existing building is to store maintenance equipment. The members had been concerned about- this becoming rental storage previously and ha,d suggested that the storage be incorporated into the main structure when the addition had been constructed. Mr. Acciarri responded that this was not financially feasible; that there is a site hardship in this case; and because of it would be impossible to have a loading dock. He gave the grade difference , examples of other detached storage buildings in this vicinity. Mr. Skoulis asked if there was any legal way to restrict this building to storage for the tenants only, if the ownership changes. Assistant Law Director Dubelko responded that it is the Building Commissioner's responsibility to verify if a proposal meets all the provisions of the Zoning Code and the Plann-ing Commission must see if the 3