10/13/1992 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

as yet the site plan does not reflect any change. Chairman Gorris advised that at this point the Conunission must refer this to the Board of Zoning Appeals either with or without a recommendation. Since they had agreed to revise the bu.ilding, it was suggested that perhaps the revised building proposal be sent to the Board of Zoning Appeals. The developers preferred not to change the building tmtil they lmew that the variances had been granted and would lmow what they ha.d to work with. Mr. Skoulis believed that this building could be re-configured, questioning why the building had to be so long if there was no seating. He also suggested putting in a basement. Mr. Pozek responded that there would be no room for a stairway in an 800 square foot building, and it was stated (from the floor) that 2 stairways would be required. Assistant Law Director Dubelko advised that the Commission could request that, if the Board of Zoni.ng Appeals is inclined to grant the variances, they be granted based on Planning Commission's approval of the architecture, type of materials to be used, and different access points. It was agreed to make separate motions for each variance needed. R. Tallon moved to forward the Rally's Restaurant proposal to the Board of Zoning Appeals with a recommendation from the Planni.ng Commission that the 25 foot front setback vaxiance be approved with the condition that the variance is tied in with the concerns of the Planning Commission regarding the access, building aesthetics, and traffic flow on the property, seconded by L. Orlowski. Roll call on motion: Tallon, Orlowski, Bowen, Gorris, 0'Rourke and Skoulis, yes. Mr. Thomas, no. Motion carried. R. Tallon moved to forward the Rally's proposal to the Board of Zoning Appeals for the 5 foot variance for the landscaping on the east side of the property with the recommendation that this variance be approved, seconded by R. Bowen. Roll call on motion: Tallon, Bowen, Gorris, 0'Rourke, Orlowski, Skoulis, and Thomas, no. Motion failed to passa IV. NEW DEVELOPMIIVTTS AND SUBDIVISIONS: No items. V. COMMUNICATIONS: No items. VI. COMNNUTTEE REPORTS: No items. VII. NEW BUSINESS: Mr. Gorris advised that Cuyahoga County Planning Commission would be delivering copies of the master plan to the clerk on October 22nd. Mr. Gorris would like the members to submit questions prior to meeting with CPC. The members agreed that there would not be enough time to study the plan before the next meeting, so it was decided to conduct regular busi.ness on October 27th and have the members submit their questions for a later meeting. VIII. OLD BUSINESS: Ord. 92-107. It was decided to discuss the ordinance at the next meeting. In reference to Nightfall Nite Club, previously Building Commission Conway had brought it up as a minor change and the members preferred to see it as an agenda item since there had been changes to the Zoning Code after the original approval in 1988. They are asking to pave the rear and change the originally approved striping on the parking lot leaving the existing front and side landscaping as it currently exists, but to develop the rear of the parcel according to the existing codes. There was a court order regarding this proposal in 1988. Assistant Law Director Dubelko believed that since there was a contract to sell the property and the asphalt plants will be closing, the Planning Commission could agree to