03/04/2004 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Note #L• There are actually 3 ground signs proposed but one is located on CVS property on Lorain Rd. Main sign 65.83 sq. ft. to replace existing CVS sign at existing location will require a size variance. Note 92: Directional sign north of main ground sign on Clague Rd. Note #3: Directional sign south of main ground sign on Clague Rd. Note 94: ground sign on Clague Road Wluch is in violation of Ord. 90-125 sections (1163.26 (a)), (1163.27 (a)), (1163.17 (a)), (1163.26 (c)), and (1163.29 and 1163.02 (f)). Chairman Maloney called interested parties fonvard to review the request. Representing the applicant included Mr. Vayda and Ms. Caserta, architects, Mr. Grendel, attomey for owners, Mr. Dalpiaz, construction manager, Mr. Nintcheff and Mr. Gunning, attomeys for the applicant. Residents and other interested parties included Mr. Frindt, Mrs. Bowman, Mrs. Stergen, and Mr. Stergen. All parties were sworn m. Mr. Gunning said the applicant is appealing the Building Commissioner's ruling that Dunkin Donuts is a restaurant. They will present evidence that the Commissioner was incorrect and request that the board reverse lus ruling, which would eliminate the area variance. As a restaurant, the lot requirements call for a 1.5-acre lot. Not classified as a restaurant, the proposed building fits the lot requirements. The applicants submitted documents to the Board written by the Building Commissioner regarding rulings of the parcel in question and other similar businesses. They reviewed definitions from different dictionaries, compared themselves to other franchises which have been in the City. They reviewed the food items that will be available to purchase and said that there would never be a Togo's at this site. The applicant said that no products would be prepared at the site as everythuig is delivered prepackaged, then sold. They reviewed that North Olmsted's zoning code does not have a definition for restaurant. They felt that the Building Commissioner should have made his decision by using examples from other cities' codes instead of a dictionary. The Board voiced that some of the comments and documentation the applicants were quoting and providing were contradictory. Applicants suggested the Board members needed to consider the legal implications regarding the Building Commissioners ruling. The applicants said that the Building Commissioner was selectively ruling as to what businesses constituted restaurants and advised the Board that they need to reverse this decision. The applicant suggested that under Ohio Law, zoning is an infringement on property owner's rights and must be construed in favor of the property owner. Residents said the Dwikin Donuts web site refers to Dunkin Donuts as a restaurant. They questioned why the City wouldn't call Dunkin Donuts a restaurant when they themselves define themselves as a restaurant. They said the first plans submitted to the City showed a large sandwich bar. They questioned if the applicants are not preparing sandwiches why they would require a sandwich bar. Residents also gave definitions they felt defined a restaurant. They showed an add published in the Plain Dealer advertising anyone interested in purchasing a Dw7lcin Donuts quick service restaurant franchise should contact them. They questioned how the applicant could advertise Dunkin Donuts as a restaurant and claim that they are not a restaurant. The applicant responded saying that while they respected the residents' right to their opinion, the issue at hand was not the varying definitions of restaurant found in different sources. The issue is that the City does not have a definition of restaurant in its zoning code that is applicable to Dunkin Donuts. The current interpretation is restricting the applicant's ability to locate in the City. Building Commissioner Conway was invited to speak. The Building Commissioner advised that the Board received lus ruling in writing and reviewed that although he was unhappy with the tools provided him throu;h the zoning code, he did not call the plan a restaurant until he was called upon to define the use. The Building Commissioner then addressed a letter from the applicants indicating that he had been misled as to what they were doing in their facility. Regarding the references to other facilities and other uses the applicants mentioned they are restaurants, that issue has never been argued. He felt the only reason the applicants were present is that there is a provision for the lot size and this lot was developed after 1991 when that provision was put into code. The Building Commissioner indicated that the other lots were developed before the placement of the code and are grandfathered. The Building Commissioner said that he did not want to sway the Board members one way or the other. The Chairman then read aloud a document he prepared reviewing statistics on Dunkin Donuts and a definition out of his Webster dictionary from home. He said that the Board would take a vote on the subject regarding the ruling of the Building 9