03/21/2001 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

a; Mr. Schill replied it is just a couple offices. Mr. Zergott questioned if there was a way of doing more landscaping on the west side. Ms. Schulz replied that they are only show,ing three trees in 85 ft. of space alonj the west side. Mr. Zergott then commented that he understood that Planning Commission changed the three spruces to crabs. Mr. Schill indicated that he was correct. Mr. Zergott commented that they really should use pears instead of crab apples because the pears won't drop fiuit all over. Cleveland select is a good variety of pear trees. Mr. Yager questioned if there was someway to keep the existing building that they plan on tearing down. They are going to put a smaller building in its place, so why not. Mr. Schill explained that it is Mr. Goold's intention to occupy the whole building as just Litehouse Pools down the road a few years. Mr. Zergott questioned if they had looked into having the building moved instead of demolished. Mr. Schill replied no. Mr. Zergott indicated that he was just wondering. Mr. Liggett commented that he agreed with Ms. Schulz on the fact the basically what they have is a 93 ft. long extension on this building with two small end pieces. There is one small one next to another small one, which creates a little bit of conflict. If there is a way to go with two smaller pyramids on the extension with something connecting the two, so you have the natural screening behind it. Mr. Yager questioned if the entry of Litehouse Pools jogged out a little bit. Mr. Schill replied yes, it is a small overhang. When they first built the building, that was not supposed to be an overhang. It was done and they had to go back for variances. Mr. Yager commented that what you don't see here, that is a little deceptive, is that the Litehouse building does jog in and out a little bit. The building is not a flat 193 ft. long fagade, it is actually 60 then 40 then another 60 ft. or something like that. The only other tenant in the place is Big and Tall and then eventually you are going to occupy it all. Why wouldn't you do the same kind of step out and make Big and Tall have a sign or some prominence as well since they are occupying roughly 1/3 of the building. Siiice you already were successful with 8 variances, with our recommendation you might be successful with a ninth. Which will get you a little closer to the street and would add some dimension and Iife. Mr. Schill replied that when Big and Tall does move out he wants to have one entrance for Litehouse Pools, not two. Mr. Zergott questioned if they would have to wait for a Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. Mr. Rymarczyk replied that he wasn't sure if they could go back for another variance. Mr. Zergott questioned even if our board suggests one. Mr. Rymarczyk replied that's correct. Mr. Goold questioned if they deny that variance will it halt our project. Mr. Zergott replied no it wouldn't stop them, it would put them back where they are today. He explained that the board is trying to help, they can't tell them what to do because they are a recommending board. So he is suggesting much nicer landscaping on the west side of the building. Mr. Yager chimed in and commented that they are suggesting in that center bay if they eliminate the mechanical screening and put something else in it's place forward, it will give life to your fagade, it will give some prominence to the other tenant, and if you step it forward and request a variance we would write a letter on your behalf saying that we think it makes sense. 1VIr. Goold questioned if the other variances that have already been granted would be jeopardized if they went back for another variance. Mr. Yager replied no, if those variances are already granted then they are locked in stone. Mr. Schill questioned if they would have to go back to Planning Commission and other meetings. IV1r. Rymarczyk replied yes, if they change the footprint of the building then Planning Commission has to see it. Mr. Liggett questioned if since - they are doing a building that is only 1/3 the size of what the main building is, is there a necessity to do some icind of projected canopy with columns to duplicate what is on the main building. If they do something of a smaller scale on the smaller of the building and proportionally kind of compliment each other, there is no reason to have an overhang. He then questioned if it is necessary to have an overhang. Mr. Zergott replied no it is not necessary, but we will not stop them if they don't get the variance. Mr. Yager commented that if they get the variance then they should put it on, but if they don't then they don't put it on. Mr. Rymarczyk commented that they would have to go to Planning Commission first and then to Board of Zoning Appeals and back to Planning Commission. Mr. Yager again commented that he or 2