11/12/2002 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4. Ponderosa Steakhouse; 25779 Lorain Road: Proposal consists of new porches on the north, east and west facades. New partial basement and a 10-foot addition to the south to relocate coolers. Note: Variances are required. Mr. Bob McGaw, the architect on the project, and Mr. Fred Bourzam, the owner of Ponderosa, came forward to address the board. Mr. McGaw indicated there is an existing 5,000 square foot restaurant that was built back in the 1970's. It was a conforming building at that time. If they had to put up the building today, it would be a non- conforming structure. He said corporate Ponderosa out of Texas came up with a concept, a transition plan, which they would like their stores to use. They want stone, some columns, and porches outside of the facilities. That is what prompted them to work on the North Olmsted site. He referred to the plans. He pointed out where there will be a 5 foot open porch. They couldn't do it today because of setbacks so that is part of their variance request. He said at the rear of the building there are existing coolers on the south side. They would like to extend the restaurant 10 feet to the south and move those coolers relative 10 feet south. He doesn't believe they need any rear yard variances for that design. He said because of the porches projecting on the west and toward the east, they had to angle their parking. As a result, it will be a one way system right now. They are respecting the 2 existing curb cuts at Lorain. He pointed out the handicapped spaces will remain to the north but are looping in and out. The restaurant opens at 11:00 a.m. so the deliveries are scheduled for Tuesdays and Fridays between 9-11:00 a.m. He pointed out the area on the plan where they will unload, which is in the rear of the building at the southwest quadrant. They have 76 parking spaces. He said the way the city's code is written, it is two seats per parking space. Mr. Bourzam came forward and explained their seating efficiency. He said it is really only about 60% of their seats that are occupied. Their average check for a party is 2.7 customers to a ta,ble or a parking spot, if they are not car-pooling. As he measured the effective seats, he came up with 178 because of what they have in eff?iciency. That does not mean that when they are full they will have that many people in the resta,urant. It only means that is the potential of what is going in and out of the seats if the restaurant is full. The drawing shows the number and size of existing tables and booths. They cater to seniors, families, and kids. They do not have a bar type counter where people linger. It is an in and out kind of place. Mrs. Hoff-Smith asked if they are changing the number of seats. Mr. Bourzam said it used to be about 180 seats, and they went to 168, and they are back to 178. Mrs. Hoff-Smith asked if they have eliminated any parking spaces. Mr. Bourzam said he believes they have added a few. Mr. Rymarczyk said according to the zoning code, we require 1 car for every 2 occupants. He said based on the seating plan submitted, if there were 200 occupants, they would require 100 car parking and not the 76 or 78 the applicant is speaking of. He said of the 76 they are showing on the parking lot layout, only 21 conform to code. The others are too small. Mr. Spalding asked if the ones they are proposing will conform. Mr. Rymarczyk said the size will not conform according to what they submitted. The applicant shows 60 degree parking and it is actually 45 degrees. He said where the curb area is, they are scaling 9 1/2 feet and it should be 10 feet forward. That means one out of 10 parking spaces would be lost if they had to conform to code on the 60 degree parking. It is up to the Planning Commission on the unloading area. They could override the zoning portion there. There will be variances required for signage. He reviewed the list. Mr. Rymarczyk indicated the drawing are inadequate so he cannot give a count of what is required for the variances. He said the architectural drawings need to be corrected too. He cannot go with the dimensions given. He said they are looking at 200 car parking required. Mr. McGaw said there are presently 75 existing spots. The restaurant has 168 seats for the 75 cars. Mr. Rymarczyk indicated they may have gotten a variance in the past. Mrs. Hoff-Smith asked for clarification on the number of spaces. W. Rymarczyk said the proposed plan shows 200 so they are increasing the number. W. McGaw said his seating is based on 178 seats and he referred to the plans. Mr. Rymarczyk said the equipment needs to be modified to make those adjustments. The numbers are not matching up. Mr. McGaw said for the next meeting they will define the seats at 24 inch increments. The will show it all on paper. There was further discussion of the seating and parking requirements. Mr. McGaw asked if the code requires a 10x20 parking space. Mr. Rymarczyk informed him it is 9x18. Mr. McGaw explained they have angled parking. Mr. Rymarczyk said the applicant should have a tablet that shows him what they need to have. Mr. McGaw said they want to show 178 seating and based on the history they may respectfully request a variance from the 2 to 1 standard for this family type of restaurant. Mr. Koeth said there is a conflict in the plans so they will table it. He said the board needs revised drawings showing exactly how much seating they will have and they need to comply with the parking so it goes with the seating. He suggested getting in touch with the building department. Mrs. Kilbane indicated the next meeting is November 26. Mr. Rymarczyk indicated the new plans need to be submitted at least a week ahead of time to allow time for review. Mr. Bob McCarthy, the president of Kings Path Condominium Association, came forward on behalf of 127 families. He asked for the distance required between the loading dock and the property. Mr. Rymarczyk said he believes it is 50 feet. Mr. McCarthy said they have had some problems because the unloading wasn't always after 9:00 a.m. It was 6:00 9