Laserfiche WebLink
u , <br />Halleen Chevrolet Truck Lot. 27932 Lorain Road. <br />Request for variance (1123.12). Request variance to display vehicles for sale in <br />75 foot front setback. Violation of Ord. 90-125, Section 1139.07 (table). Also <br />request variance to relocate prohibited pole sign from 27871-81 Lorain Rd. <br />(location of sign would not conform to requirement for permitted pylon and ground <br />signs); also request 10 square foot variance for total sign area allowed for <br />business use. Violations of Ord. 1162.22(a) and 1163.11(a)< <br />Proposal continued from meeting of AZarch 4, 1992, and has been amended to include <br />the demolition of the Partners Lounge building and the setback is to match the <br />one on the adjacent car lot. Proposal continued from meeting of April 1, 1992e <br />Chairman Gomersall called all interested parties before the Board. The oath was <br />administered to Mr. Halleen, owner, and Mr. Giesser, attorney. Mr. Gomersall <br />stated that they were to return with a landscaped plan. Mr. Giesser explained <br />that the request is the same, they do not want to increase the buffer to 25 feet <br />as requested; they want to continue the same buffer that is on the adjacent <br />dealership. Mr. Gomersall clarified that no specific size was set, the Board had <br />indicated that 25 feet might be acceptable. Mr. Giesser advised that NIr. Halleen <br />was present to discuss dressing up the whole front, removing the white posts <br />which appear to be a problEm and landscaping the existing 7 feet with low shrubs. <br />He maintained that cars have to be displayed in the front 25 feet because the gas <br />station next door is 25 feet back and would obscure them. The Partners' Lounge <br />will be removed and the property upgraded. He did not believe that a 25 foot <br />setback would look right adjacent to a 7 foot setback. Mr. Halleen, who had not <br />been present at the first r_wo meetings, advised that after he had been told that <br />the Partners' building could be a problem, he agreed to ha.ve it torn down. Mr. <br />Gomersall questioned if he had been told that the set ba.ck was a big issue. Mr. <br />Halleen indicated that he had been told. He stated that after that, he had been <br />told the white posts had been a big issue. He is present find out what the Board <br />wantso Mr. Gomersall advxsed that the Board is asking for a landscaping plan in <br />the front setback, they are not inclined to grant a variance to continue the same <br />setback that is on the Halleen Chevrolet Car Lot. The members agreed that the <br />white posts and tearing down the building had been mentioned, but were not major <br />points. Law Director Gareau advised that it is up to the applicant to establish <br />that there is a hardship here, the Planning Conmii.ssion and City Council have <br />increased the 50 foot setback to 75 feet and have stated that merchandise cannot <br />be displayed in that setUack. The Board is looking for a reason to grant a <br />variance for something other than what is there now. Mr. Giesser stated that <br />taking 75 feet out of a 90 foot lot is ridiculous.. Mr. Gareau stated that using <br />exactly what is there now might not be in the spirit of the code. Mr. Giesser <br />responded that it could be because the two setbacks would be the same. He <br />maintained that all business display cars in front whether they are licensed or <br />unlicensed, this is an exi.sting area, to have one of the jog ba,ck is not <br />reasonable. Mr. Gareau mentioned other dealerships which are side by side and <br />have different setbacks. Mr. Giesser believed that these were developed <br />separately. Mr. Gomersall explained that the Board had always suggested something <br />less than 75 feet, perhaps 20 or 25. Mr. Grace asked if they had a landscape plan <br />as requested. Mr. Maloney read a portion of the minutes to clarify the point for <br />Mr. Halleen: "The members agreed that tearing down the building was not the <br />primary objection, they mainly wanted a larger planting area of at least 20 feet <br />mini.mtun, the Board had agreed that a 75 foot setback was excessive." Mr. Gareau <br />clarified that if the builciing was removed, cars could not be sold since there <br />ha.s to be a main building, but this lot could be joined to the adjacent lot. <br />After some discussion it was de'eided that this probably is a separate lote In <br />reference to the pole sign, Mr. Halleen explained that he merely wanted to move <br />8