05/14/1991 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.0 shining into their homes. Mrs. Sowl stated that the noise and debris created by the business was also a factor and she would still prefer a 6 foot wood fenceo Mr. Orlowski suggested that it might be possible to put a fence along the south and east side to the dumpster area so that when the cars make the turn the headlights would be shielded and the debris would be contained on this property. Members discussed where the fence should be located. Mr. Gorris showed the neighbors the site plan and discussed fencing and. the possibility of planting more trees on the rear natural portion of the property and estimated that tliere would be about 160 feet from the drive. He advised that the neighbors should discuss the drainage with the Engineering Department. During the discussion it was stated that the speaker would face the west. City Engineer Deichmann stated that there apparently was a ditch at one time and there is an easement but this would be studied when the final plans are submitted. Mr. Gorris advised the neighbors how this proposal would be heard by the Architectural Review Board on May 22nd and would return to the Commission on May 28th. Mr. Thomas would like a traffic impact study. Mr. Skoulis again stated he did not like the look of the signs and would ask the developer to consider a ground sign (the new codes phasing out pole signs are in the process of being passed) and he would also like the developer to consider changing the colors of the building. Mr. Vannelli stated that they had no problem with changing to ground sign. Mrs. Sowl was advised that if the fence were installed along the rear property line, it would be lower than the building, and that a fence behind the building would shield the lights and the sound more effectively. She was concerned that people will walk through and would prefer a fence abutting the neighbors' properties. Mr. Thomas pointed out that by opening up the rear of the property there would be a tendency to for people to use it. Mr. Skoulis asked if the developer would have any objection to changing the colors of the roof and the signs to something more subdued. Mr. Betts suggested that the referral should be contingent on the colors being changed and ask the Architectural Board to make suggestions on that. M. Betts moved to forward the the Hot 'n Now Hamburger development proposal to construct drive through restaurant to the Architectural Board of Review, and to the Safety and Engineering Departments with the following recommendations and clarifications: that special attention be provided to the screening of the neighbors at the southern and eastern exposures of the development; that the color scheme of the building be changed and that the A.R.B. provide recommendations on a more subtle color scheme; that the A.R.B. also make recomnendations on the landscaping plan; that the developer provide marketing data on traffic generated by this development and that this data be used to complete a traffic study; further, that the pole sign be changed to a ground sign; that the lighting presently included on the roof be removed; and that the city forester also be consulted on this development, seconded by J. Thomas, and Lmanimously approved. 3) West Com, 25021 Lorain Road. Proposal to relocate garage doors and renovation to front of building. Mr. Matisko, owner, presented plans and explained that the garage doors that faced Lorain Road were to be relocated to the rear of the building and the exterior of the building was to be renovated. Their business is installing mobile electronic equipment. He clarified for Mr. Orlowski that there would only be one garage door and that it would be necessary to excavate about 3 feet to lower the grade to the elevation of the garage floor (only about a 12 foot area). He plans to put a trench drain in and also use an existing sunp 5