01/14/1992 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. all wiring will be tmderground and power will come from an existing pole; the building will be cream colored and very plain; and there will be a monitored alarm system installed. Members studied the landscaping plan, and Mr. Skoulis wondered why the trees were not on the mound which is to be 4 feet high. The plans were explained to Mr. Reveglia, an adjacent neighbor, who had no objection since the building was not behind his property. Mr. Gorris explained that the building will not be visible to the residents who live directly behind it. Mr. Gorris stated he believed this would be an improvement since everything else would be removed, but he would like to see the shrubs go up through the fence, but he is not sure the City would agree to that. It was decided that this would not have to go to the Architectural Review Board, but the proposal should be reviewed by the Safety Department and and the landscaping could be reviewed informally by Mr. Zergott of the Architectural Review Board and reports could be made directly to the B.Z.D. Committee. B. Gorris moved to approve the Cablevision proposal, 25990 Lorain Road to install a 10 by 20 foot service building on the north east corner of the recreational center building, this proposal should be forwarded to the Safety Department for their comments which should be directed to the BZD Committee of Council, and this proposal should also be reviewed by Mr. Zergott for the adequacy of the planting and the effectiveness of the screening of the planting and have his comments forwarded to the B.Z.D. seconded by A. Skoulis, and imanimously approved. IV. NEW DEVELOPMIIQ'TS AND SUBDIVISIONS: No items. V. COMM[JNICATIONS : Chairman Gorris read the letter from Building Commissioner Conway pertaining to procedures that the Conunission prefers to follow for two separate issues. The first being signage for theatres as stipulated in Section 1163.12(i) which requires that "Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board shall determine the size and design characteristic of theatre signage" In the past any signs `which were.to be reviewed were sent to the Architectural Board without referral to the Planning Comanission as per Section 1161.16(d). The second question pertains to the Conditional Use permit and if when requesting such a permit, must all the items required in Section 1126 for submission to Planning Commission be required. Regarding the first request, after some discussion and considering tha.t this particular sign is basically a wall sign and the intent of the code seems to refer to a marquee which projects out from the building, it was agreed that this particular sign was no different than the other wall signs •in the shopping center, and should be reviewed only by the A.R.B. Regarding the conditional use permit, Chairman Gorris agreed that submitting all that the required information at the first hearing should not be necessary, but if the Commission approves the Conditional Use Permit, then the required information must be submitted at another meeting. Assistant La.w Director Dubelko believed tha.t if more information were available, it would be easier to tie down certain stipulations. Specifically, Mr. Conway stated that he had a proposal for a body shop on the west side of town, and since he was not sure that the Commission would approve it and he was reluctant to ask that the developer go to the expense of getting all the specifics, site plan, landscaping, etc. Mr. Dubelko stated that the Commission would be better able to make a decision if complete information is submitted. Mr. Skoulis stated that Section 1126.02 already gave the Building Commissioner the right to require whatever he believed to be necessary. Mr. Conway stated that he planned to require concept plans only, but would have a problem doing this if the Commission demanded more information at the meeting. 4