Laserfiche WebLink
? <br />retui7iing with a complete sigu package. Mr. Zergott will have to review tlus plan before the <br />B.Z.D. meeting. The green squares will be replaced with something with a permanent color, but <br />not be green, possibly just a different type of block. Mr. Ziska again stated that three additional <br />centurion crab trees will be planted on the east side in the lawn area and two on the east rear <br />area, and three red maples along the rear. They will be keeping the arborvitae on the west, but fie <br />claimed that there was no room for additional trees there. R. Tallon moved to accept the World <br />of Sleep proposal to construct a building at 24260 Lorain Road at the existing Rad Air site <br />(building will be demolished), to the B.Z.D. Committee with the following conditions: that a <br />single pole be included on the rear lot line of the parking area, maximum wattage to be 150 watts <br />and max'vnum height to be 15 foot; that the landscaping plan must be approved by Mr. Zergott <br />of the A.R.B. before the B.Z.D. meeting; and all the recommendations of the Architectural <br />Review Board are to be included, seconded by R. Koeth, and unanimously approved. <br />2) Commercial Building,at Fleharty and Lorain Roads (Marjak Development Co.). <br />Proposal to replace existing single family home and existmg commercial building with <br />new retail development. An assembly of lots will be required. <br />Referral is required to the Board of Zoning Appeals. <br />Chairnan Tallon distributed copies of a letter that he had received from the residents. Mr. <br />Morigello, architect, and the owners, 1VIr. Brown and Mr. Glazier, presented the plaus. Mr. <br />Mongello explained that this construction will complete the development of Olmsted Plaza. They <br />will be removing the residence at Fleharty and Lorain as well as the former gas station next door <br />that is now a retail store. They have been plauniug this construction and attempting to acquire <br />tlus property for the last 12 years but, in the mean time, the codes have changed. Consequently, <br />since this is a small lot, and the setback aud buffers have been enlarged, they will need variances. <br />The front setback was changed from 50 foot to 75 foot, requiring a 48 foot variance; the front <br />landscape buffer has been changed from 5 feet to 20 feet requiring a 15 foot variance; the side <br />setback (abutting Flehariy) has been changed from 25 to 50 feet requiring a 25 foot setback <br />variance; and the rear yard landscape buffer which originally was 5 feet is now 15 feet, requiring <br />a 10 foot variance. If they complied to the setback requirements, they could only build a 15 foot <br />deep building as shown on page 9 of the plans. This store will contain 3 units, Safelite (now in. <br />the building which will be removed) will move back in and a financial institution is being <br />considered along with a dental lab. He maintained that these were low traffic tenants. Deliveries <br />will be through the front, and the reason for the basement is because of the grade changes and it <br />will be used for storage. Two curb cuts will be closed and one added at the cornex of Fleharty <br />and one adjacent existing drive will be moved west to service both this buildgng and one of the <br />existing buildings. Building Commissioner Conway advised that there will be another variance <br />needed for the driveway which is less than 100 feet from the intersection, arid the loading zone <br />shown would block one parking space, but they do have one additional parking space over the <br />required. Mr. Mongello maintained that these tenants were not high traffic producers. He advised <br />Mr. Miller that a building that conformed to all setbacks could only have 1,800 square feet, and <br />they are proposing to have approximately 7,000 square feet on the first floor. He maintained that <br />this is a continuation of the existing buildings in the shopping center, and also has the same <br />setbacks of the adjacent Litehouse Pool building on the other side of Fleharty. He does not <br />believe that this is equitable considering what is existing. Mr. Conway advised that as far as lot <br />coverage allowed, this building conforms since he is allowed to cover 25% of the land area, but it <br />is the setback requirements that are limiting the size of the building. Mrs. O'.Igourke stated that, <br />at present, these might be low traffic producing businesses, but that could change, and they <br />2