My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06/28/1994 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
1994
>
1994 Planning Commission
>
06/28/1994 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:32:40 PM
Creation date
1/29/2019 7:45:47 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
1994
Board Name
Planning Commission
Document Name
Minutes
Date
6/28/1994
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
r <br />review for tlus proposal at the next meeting, other than the muted red, the elimination of the <br />striping behind Best Buys, and the screening. He suggested that if there are no objections by <br />Safety or Engineering, tlus proposal could go directly to B.Z.D. after the A.R.B. meeting and that <br />A.R.B. could_ send their recommendations to Planning Commission. After some discussion, it was <br />decided that since there will be no Council meeting after the next Planning Commission meeting, <br />approval would be delayed until late August or early September, so the members agreed that this <br />would not have to be returned. Since there will be both a B.Z.D. and Council" meeting on July <br />Sth, Mr. Papandreas advised that he would like to ask for a special A.R.B. meeting to get final <br />approval on July Sth: Mr. Miller explained that he would be attend.ing the B.Z.D. on Ju1y Sth and <br />if there were any major changes, he would be there to represent the Coiumission. It was noted <br />that most -of the questions on this proposal were about laudscaping and buffering. The members <br />agreed. Mr. Gorris amended his motion to forward this to the Architectural Review Board and if <br />tlie A.RB. agrees to have a special meeting, and provided that board has no major objections to <br />the proposal, it could then be forwarded directly to the July Sth B.Z.D. Committee of Cou.ncil <br />meeting and then on to Council, seconded by K O'Rourke, and unauimously approved. During <br />the framing of the motion, Mr. Papandreas stated that they would be willing to comply with any <br />comment that they may make. Mr. Miller asked Mr. Hogan to keep the Commission apprised of <br />how things are going and if any progress is being made. Mr. Tallon thanked Biskind <br />Development aud the home owners' association for their co-operation. <br />3) Boston Chicken, 26440 Lorain Rd. <br />Revised proposal to construct new building on former National City Bank Building property <br />(existing build.ing will be demolished). <br />Original proposal to use existing building was heard April 12, 1994. <br />Withdrawn at Board of Zoning Appeals meeting of June 9, 19?4 to present revised plans. <br />Requires referral to Board of Zoning Appeals for revised plans. <br />Mr. Landru, representing P. & L. Foods (Boston Chicken), gave a brief explanation of what has <br />occurred prior to this hearing and advised that he requested that the Board of Zoning Appeals <br />table the proposal while their attorney, Mr. Wincek, reviewed the proposal. Mr. Wincek advised <br />that since they might have some rights for non-conforming use of an existing building, etc., they <br />have kept the original plan on the table; however, have returned with an alternative plan that <br />includes the adjacent property to the east which would help to alleviate some of the existing traffic <br />problems. The original plans are active and they could move forward on those. The members had <br />received a brief from Mr. Wincek and a copy of the new plans which places the building further <br />back on the property, closes off some driveways, and rearranges the traffic flow. Building <br />Commissioner Conway advised that some of the same setback problems are still existing and they <br />are adding new parking spaces to support the restaurant. He advised that the Law Director has <br />submitted a memo pertaining to the proposal, and they have discussed the facility, the fact that <br />they are removing an existing lot line, and it is his contention that the existing p arking should <br />remain as is, and the new paxking for the restaurant should be addressed under the current codes. <br />He advised that they would need an 8 foot variance on the west property line, the front setback <br />will run from 20 feet down to 7.5 feet, so a variance would be needed for that; and a variance will <br />be needed for the a 15 foot rear setback since it would be required where this property abuts <br />residential property but they may be able to pick up some additional area in the rear and one or <br />3
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.