09/26/2000 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1? satellite or baking for other stores. Mr. Tallon questioned how many stores they plan on supplying from this store. Mr. Trowbridge replied that they don't know how many they can produce from it, the plan is to take their Fairview store keep all the bake stufFthere and basically duplicate it here as a backup if power goes out or whatever the situation is. This is a much better location for them because it has level floors where in Fairview the building has settled terribly. His plan is to bake for the two stores in North Olmsted and one store in Fairview. Mrs. O'Rourke questioned how many donuts a day do they sell. Ms. Trowbridge replied about 70 to 100 dozen in the North Olmsted store. 1VIr. Tallon commented that he is not selling them to his other locations rather than just supplying them: Mr. Conway replied that is the line they are trying to draw. Mr. Trowbridge commented that they presently do not wholesale. Mr. Tallon commented that is not a problem the problem is that 70. percent of the building . is used for making donuts and only 20 percent of the building is used for selling them. Mr. Conway commented that he would present the proposal as they, need to seek a use variance for the accessory use, so tliey're discussing whether or not it is primary or accessory. He thinks they can move on it unless there is a strong objection by the Law Department that they seek a variance because the accessory use is not dedicated to that particular location. W. Conway doesn't want to police the store. R. Tallon motioned to recommend in favor of Donut Connection of 29603 Lorain Rd. a use variance with respect to propose accessory use of baking donuts for off site sales. Mrs. W. Spalding seconded the motion and was unanimously approved. Motion Carried. R. Tallon motioned to accept the proposal of Donut Connection 29603 Lorain Rd. of opening a donut shop with a drive through window and making donuts for satellite shops. K. O'Rourke seconded the motion and was unanimously approved. Motion Carried. IV. NEW DEVELOPMENTS AND SUBDIVISIONS: 1. Great Northern Mall Lot Split , illard'sl Bruce Rinker, of 55 Public Square, came forward to review the lot split. They have submitted a request for Dillard's for the lot split of parcels 1 and 2. Parcel l, the way it is split, ends up with frontage on Country Club of roughly 75 feet and the code requirement is 150 feet for this use. This really is a matter of coincidence in advertance because of the existing layout of the mall and they find themselves in a position to request an area variance for the frontage issue because it doesn't comply with the code. The second issue is the 1,900 minimal feet of sidewalk running on the north side of Country Club. They were told that is a code requirement, they will comply with that and he thinks the drawings just didn't show 'it. R. Tallon questioned why can't they just divide the property so we have the 150. Mr. Deichinann commented that the parcel next to parcel 1 is an existing parcel, which is Star Banks. Mr. Tallon questioned why are they creating a non-conforming lot. Mr. Tallon then commented that this matter could be resolved with an easement. ' R. Tallon motioned to accept the lot split of Dillard's with the condition that the sublot 1, the line from 45.39 to 68.36 be removed and that parcel 1 still be part of parcel 3. The motion was seconded by S. Asseff and unanimously approved. Motion Carried. .9