11/01/2007 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

COMIVIUNICATIONS Mr. O'Malley requested the Clerlc provide Clark Gas Station Representative Mr. Manning a copy of the findings the board had requested the law department draft. He recommended the board address the findings prior to addressing the applicants request for reconsideration. He reviewed that the.findings followed the boards minutes i.e. they followed the variance brealcouts from the boards motions made. The board found the findings submitted to be in accordance to what took place at their October 4, 2007 meeting. Mr. 1VIenser moved, seconded by Mrs. Sergi, to adopt the findings of Clark Gas Station into the minutes of loTovember 01, 2007 as submitted and vvas unanimously approved 4-0. Petition for reconsider of the BZA ruling dated October 4, 2007 pertaining to Clark Gas Stati'on: RepreseAtatives: Mr. Manning the attorney for the owner came forward to be sworn in and address'the request. Mrs.D'iver reviewed that the board received the October 30t" drawings and letters of October 17 & October 29th from Mr. Manning. Mr. Manning reviewed that he represented the owner (Michael Musa) of the gas station. It's the owner's hope to improve what he believes to be an eyesore in North Olmsted. He hopes that the board will grant the petition for reconsideration with the understanding that they will not debate the same topics of October 4`" meeting. If reconsideration is approved he will return before the board with a new submittal and reasons whicli did not nor could not have been presented at the October 4`" meeting. It was their inisconception when they came before the BZA in October that the Planning & Design Corrimission had already approved the plan and the Board of Zoning Appeals would just follow the Commission's recommendations. However they now understand that the board views the project differently from the PDC. The owner has heard the BZA's concerns regarding safety hazards'created by the proposed monument sign and the lot coverage being exceeded. The plan was reevaluated to address what had to be done with the least amount of variances possible and they:fourid that scaling back the size of the building could eliminate 8 of the 14 variances first reqtiested. They eliminated the ground/monument sign and scaled back the building size to ensure., 25% lot coverage would not be exceeded. They would like the opportunity to return before the board to address their new plan. He briefly touched upon which of the 14 variances they may or may not need any longer. Mr. O'Malley reviewed the board's rules which govern reconsideration and addressed the options available in addressing the applicant's request. He recommended the board grant the request for reconsideration based upon the applicants' representation that a new development plan is to be submitted. Once the new development plan is filed the building department would review the plan and send it back to the PDC for their review and recommendations. Board merribers were in favor of reconsideration based on the applicant's presentation that a new developinent plan would be submitted. . , 5