04/12/1994 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

a extremely congested, and even though the developer stated that they had less traffic than a bank or a fast food restaurant, the hours are differeut and they will be open later. She does not believe tlus is a good location for a restaurant. The members agreed and Mr. Gorris stated that he was going to make a motion aud preface it with some verbiage. Mr. Thomas suggested that soinetunes the motions going to the B.Z.A. were too wordy, he believed that the message did not come tbrough and he would like the items siumnarized prior to making the motion. In other words, if the members believed that this site is inappropriate for restaurant, retail or fast food use because of the traffic hazards it could generate and the problems the Comanission has noted so the B.Z.A. cau get the idea of what directiou the Commissiou is going in. Mr. Gorris stated that tlus Commission believes that this site is inappropriate for any high volume use and believed that since tlus particular type of food establislvneut will requ.ire variances to permit parking to allow for seating , it is an excess use on this site. Therefore W. Gorris stated that he moved that the Commissiou reconunends to the Board of Zoning Appeals against granting the variances for the 10 foot rear yard, 10 foot side yards and if they need a variance for froutage, the Commission also reconamends against that for the Boston Chickeu proposal at 26440 Lorain Road.. The Commission would request that the Building Department review the back 5 parking spaces that are 90 degrees to the driveway, but it would appear that the driveway width is less than the 23 foot required for a 90 degree parking space, seconded by J. Thomas, and unanimously approved. V. COMMUNICATIONS: No items. VI. COMIlVIITTEE REPORTS: No items. VII. NEW BUSINESS: No iteins. VIII. OLD BUSINESS: The members received a memo from Mr. Dixon, architect from Wendy's, which indicated that there was no easemeut agreement for the joint use of the drive with the business next door. Mr. Dixon had presented additional plans which showed the driveway completely on their property. Mr. Thomas believed that Wendy's had misunderstood what the Commission had asked for, and stated that there was never an intent to have two driveways side by side. Mr. Gorris suggested that the Commission let the developer know that he should not come back until he has an agreemeut with the adjacent property owuer. Mr. Thomas stated that the developer should be told that the Commission is not encouraging another driveway, they are encouraging a sensible use of the existing shared access, assumiug that there is au easement or some agreement that Wendy's can use that property. If there is no agreement, the Commission must determine if those drives uext to each other are acceptable. Mr. Deichmaun explained that Mr. Gs-i?'ith, the traffic engineer, would never recommend putting two drives side by side. Mr. Thomas pointed out that Mr. 4