|
?
<br />1. A 63 foot variance for building front setback, (code requires 75ft, applicant shows 12ft.), (1139.07). '" .
<br />2. A 40 foot side yard variance for (building side east), (code requires SOft, applicant shows lOft),
<br />(1139.07).
<br />3. A 50 foot side yard variance for drive-through canopy only (building side east), (code requires SOft,
<br />applicant shows Oft), (1139.07).
<br />4. * A 36 foot variance for rear yard setback, (code requires SOft, applicant shows 14ft), (1139.07).
<br />5. A 13 foot variance for front parking setback, (code requires 20ft, applicant shows 7ft), (1139.07).
<br />6. An 8 foot variance for East Side parking setback, (code requires 20ft, applicant shows 12ft),
<br />(1139.07).
<br />7. A5 foot variance for West Side parking setback, (code requires lOft, applicant shows 5ft), (1139.07).
<br />8. A 10 foot variance for rear paing setback, (code requires 15ft, applicant shows Sft), (1139.07).
<br />9. A 10 foot variance for drive-through setback, (code requires lOft, applicant shows 28 to 0),
<br />(1139.07).
<br />10. An 11 foot variance for front entrance, (code requires width max'mum of 24ft, applicant shows 35ft),
<br />(1161.10 B). Note: width may be 34ft. if 3 lanes.
<br />11. An 11 foot variance for side entrance, (code requires width malunum of 24ft, applicant shows 30ft),
<br />(1161.10 B).
<br />Which is an violation of Ord. 90-125 sections, (1139.07) and (1161.10 B). Note: x not applicable if lots
<br />are consolidated. -
<br />Mr. Gomersall called all interested parties forward to review the variances requested. John Wojtila, from
<br />Zaremba Group aald Rick Zirrunerman, with ZZ Design came forward to review the variances. Mr.
<br />Gomersall remarked that the applicants needed eleven variances and had been to the Plaruiing Commission
<br />and the Architectural Review Board. Mr. Wojtila indicated they had also been before Landmark's
<br />Commission. Mr. Gomersall questioned where the Landmark Commission's notes were and questioned, if
<br />Mr. Wojtila was aware of their comments. Mr. Wojtila suggested that he was only aware that Landmark's
<br />had reviewed the proposal. Mr. Zunmerman commented that there were_ntunerous comments during the
<br />two or three official meetings and that the whole plan evolved into something completely different than
<br />what CVS started with. Law Director, Gareau commented that he wanted the Commissioners to know
<br />that CVS was the first proposal before Landmarks Commission in an official capacity. As a result of the
<br />recommendations made by Landmark's, Planning Commission, and the Architectural Review the above
<br />variances are needed. Mr. Gomersall remarked that CVS had been working with-the City instead of just
<br />dtunping any type of proposal on the City. Mr. Zunmerman indicated that he would be happy to review
<br />what was discussed at the Landmark's meetings. All though there are eleven variances requested, he
<br />would like to keep the focus on one issue. The proposal is in need of these variances due to making sure
<br />that the site is developed in such a way that is most beneficial to not only CVS, but North Olmsteds
<br />Historical district as well. For the most part the required variances are setbacks of one sort or another and
<br />they all deal with the simple fact that this site is a very difficult one to lay out for commercial property,
<br />especially when you add in the various goals that Landmarks and Platuiing Commission requested.
<br />Landmarks as well as the Plamiing Commission wanted to achieve definition at that corner, to resolve
<br />various traffic concerns, and to preserve the landscaping on the site. It required taking the site and
<br />configuring it in a way that was rather unconventional which led CVS directly to these variance requests.
<br />Mr. Wojtila presented exllibits of the site as it would appear once approved. . He suggested that if the
<br />variances were granted CVS would not need to purchase any more residential property and a brick wall
<br />would be used to buffer the residence. CVS has added decorative lainpposts, benches and landscaping to
<br />make the stores appearance unique. Mr. Zirrunerman indicated that the key point he addressed earlier was
<br />that the bulk of the variances derived from the fact that this is a unique site plan. He indicated that CVS
<br />was very conscious about creating CVS as a very memorable place in North Olmsted. Mr. Zimmerman
<br />indicated there was strong feelings from Landmark Commission and the Architectural Review Board that
<br />this is a historic place and it needs to remain historic, and that the area needed to be treated with a respect
<br />and care. Mr. Zimmerman concluded that overall, CVS thinlcs that when you look the issues of the
<br />setbacks requested, it isn't the fact that CVS has come onto a tradition rectangular site with one frontage
<br />2
|