Laserfiche WebLink
... <br />two feet on the side. They show 3 more parking spaces than required by code to support both <br />buildings. Mr. Landru stated that they are still working out the agreement with the adjacent <br />property oAnier and it still has not been determined if would be a lot consolidation, or if the <br />property lines are kept, soiue type of agreement. The easement for the rear driveway is a <br />permanent recorded easemeut with Best Products. Mr. Thomas asked which proposal they <br />actually wanted. Mr. Landru would prefer to go forward with the original proposal to use the <br />existing building, but they are presenting the revised plan. Mr. Conway clarified that he is not re- <br />submitting the origiual plan, he has chosen to keep it active in the Board of Zoning Appeals who <br />has uot yet voted on it, and the Commission did make recommendations on that plan. Mr. Thomas <br />did not believe that the Commission could make recommendations to the B.Z.A. on this plan, <br />because it was uot au official submittal, unless he agreed to withdraw the other plan and submit <br />this one. Mr. Thoma s advised that he was far more in favor of tearing the existing building down, <br />buildiug the new building, removing the curb cut on Lorain Road and creating a better traffic <br />pattern. Most ofthe members agreed. Mr. Landru advised that fhe property line was not shown <br />on the plan. Mr. Wiucek, attomey, advised that he did not think it was necessary for P. and L. <br />Food Service to withdraw the first application. In reference to the first plan, he believed that they <br />do have rights to use it without question, but the alternative might satisfy everyone. This company <br />does want to coine into the city, but is in a strange predicament. Mr. Thomas is concemed <br />because once a variance is granted, the only way to reverse it is through the courts. He is <br />concerned that the Couunission would spend time recommending variances for a proposal that is <br />not o:fficial and nothing could be done with it. After some discussion, it was clarified that if they <br />withdraw the original plan and the revised plan is not approved, they can re-activate the first plan. <br />Mr. Tallon clarified that if the new plan did not go tluough, they could always re-submit the <br />original plan to Planning Commission. Mr. Conway believed that this was a formal submittal and <br />agreed that the original plans could be re-activated. Mr. Lan* stated that, on behalf of P. and <br />L. Food Services, and since they are not giving np the rig]its that they believe that they have on <br />this property, they will withdraw their previous submittal (Plan "A") that was before the <br />Commission and which is holding in B.Z:A,, to obtain the Commission's approval on plan "B" <br />and to move forward to B.Z.A. It was clarified that the only reason that this plan was before the <br />Commission at this time was to forward it to the Board ofZoning Appeals with recommendations <br />which B.Z.A. does not necessarily have to follow. Mr. Conway re-explained the variances. <br />Because the front parking is new, they will need an 18 foot front setback variance (the setback is <br />withiu 2 feet at the closest point); an 8 foot variance on the west property line; and approximately <br />an 11 foot variance on the rear. The existing parking on the adjacent lot does not have to be <br />add.ressed. Mr. Landru noted that some ofthe spaces were existing. Mr. Conway stated that ifhe <br />could show the 62 spaces that support the structure, he might change his mind on that and he <br />noted that it is close. Mr. Orlowski suggested that these spaces might have been striped under the <br />old ordinance but this will have to be verified. Mr. Conway stated that this is an existing condition <br />with a little bit of laudscaping, and they are not going to gain much more than a couple feet of <br />grass. There is a hoine in back ofthe adjacent shopping center. Mr. Thomas stated that the. <br />Commission only ueeded to address the variances. He asked Mr. Conway for verification that <br />once a variance is granted, it follows the property forever. Mr. Conway advised that the <br />variances are granted for a year, and then the parcel becomes non-conforming. 1V1r. Thomas <br />questioned if the B.Z.A. granted these variances for this proposal, could these, in any way, effect <br />the existing buildiug. Mr. Conway stated that the only variance that could effect the existing <br />4