06/28/1994 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

\ building would be ou the west property line, aud they might be able to add 1 parking space on the fiont setback, but the other variances are relative to property lines that are not shown on this drawing since the east property line has been eliminated. with this proposal. No adjacent neighbors were present. Mr. Conway did not see how granting variances for tlus proposal could apply to the previous proposal, but he will check this with Law Director Gareau before the issue is broached by B.Z.A. Tlus development could either be assembled or there could be some kind of agreement between the two property owners. The entire property is zoned General Retail. Ifthe lot liues were shown on the plan, some variances might be required for the building, but the Commission must rule on the proposal that is presented, and the developer has said that the property lines are uot going to exist and ifthis does not happen, then the approval would be null and void. He would consider this as a co-development as it is presented now. In reference to the buildings, there will be two separate buildings with no continuity between them. It was noted that there was a gap between the two buildings; the closest point being about 4 feet in the front and to about 12 feet in back. Mrs. O'Rourke believed that this was a potential hazard. The members discussed the proposal among themselves. Mr. Gorris stated that he would like the two buildings tied together to look like one building, not a gray and red building next to a brick building and had assumed that the buildings would be attached or at least tied in to one another. Mr. Thomas stated that the Commission would prefer that the existing building be tom down, aud the new building moved back, but they would prefer It to be a co-development. He suggested that, even if they did not want to use real brick, they at least could use a concrete brick material which would be compatible with the older building. Mr. Landru cannot speak for the other owner, but he advised that they have done this. in other places and would consider this here. Mr. Thomas stated that since the developer seems to be vvilliug to work with the city in both the architecture and the footpriut of the building, and considering that Mr. Conway has indicated that any variances recominended will not effect greatly the current bank building,and the development that they, " proposed previously, he would be willing to make recommendations on the variances. It was ' decided that this plan should be identified specifically in the motion. J. Thomas stated that he would like to preface his motion to the Board of Zoning Appeals with a statement that says that "We understand that the original proposal by Boston Chicken has been withdrawn as oftonight's Plann.ing Commission meeting. The proposal we have before us, signed and dated by Mr. Gorris, June 28th 1994, is the current proposal for Boston Chicken's development on Lorain Road; and it is also our understanding that any variances that they need for this proposal will not effect the cuirent bank building should it remaiu freestanding and should the developer decide to withdraw the new proposal and instead resurrect the bank building proposal, so I would like to make my recominendations based on that." J. Thomas moved to recommend that the Board of Zoning Appeals grant to P. & L. Foods, AKA North Olmsted Boston Chicken, an 18 foot front setback variance on Lorain Road, an 8 foot side yard variance on the west boundary, and a 12 foot rear variance on the north boundary as it relates to parking and drives. The Commission would also like the Board ofZoning Appeals to know that the developer has indicated his willingness to work with the city to provide compatibility of building materials, architecture, and development of the parcel so that there is a more coherent look on the site. Mr. Gorris amended the motion to read, that the Commission realizes that these variances could be interpreted as severe variances that we are recommending for this, but we are supporting this mainly based upon the fact that this proposed development should improve the overall area from a traffic and safety standpoint, in and out of the parcels, and further based upon the architect's willingness to tie the buildings together, 5