Laserfiche WebLink
desire of this Board, and while we appreciate the fact that they have an identity <br />that they wish to maintain, we would like the whites and the reds muted, and that <br />the grout should be the sar,ie color as the tile, seconded by K. 0'Rourke, and <br />unanimously approved. It was clarified that the bottom of the building could be <br />all red, or whatever would be most muted. <br />3) Halleen?Chevrolet, 27932 Lorain Road. <br />Review of site plan and landscaping (existing Partner`s Lounge building to be <br />demolished). <br />Proposal must be referred to the Board of Zoning Appeals. <br />Referred back for city approval by order of the court. <br />Building Commissioner Conway explained that, originally, this had been before <br />the Board of Zoning Appeals for tYiree meetings in order to get variances to <br />display vehicles in the 75 foot front setback, as well as for a variance for the <br />lack of a 20 foot landscaped buffer in the front setback, and a 10 foot landscape <br />buffer on the east side all of which were denied by the Board of Zoning Appeals. <br />At first they were going to use the Paxtners' building as a sales office, but <br />under the revised proposal that building will be razed. Mr. Conway determined <br />that, since the proposal has been significantly changed, it should be heard by <br />plarLn;ng Commission prior to going back to the Board of Zoning Appeals. At, this <br />point they are planning to landscape a 7 foot buffer which will be the same as <br />that which is an the adjacent lot (lots will be asseMbled) and will include a 35 <br />foot (triangular shaped) landscape axea at the south east corner of the property <br />line, but no landscaping is to be extended. down that 1ine. Assistant Law Director <br />Dubelko advised that the city is presently in court on this matter and the judge <br />had referred the issue back to the B.Z.A. to attempt to.seek a settlement. Since <br />the original proposal had been ehanged it had been determined tha.t this should be <br />heard by Planning Commission. He requested that this be acted on this evening <br />since they must report back to the court by February 13th or 14th. He clarified <br />that normally this is the typical order of a proposal and at this time the <br />Commission should indicate what would be acceptable to them and if the Law <br />Department can report back to the judge that an agreement can be reached, this <br />proposal could return to the Conudssion. Mr. Giesser, attorney for the developer, <br />advised that the sign is not part of this proposal, that they intended to remove <br />the posts on the 7 foot grass strip on the existing dealership, replace thern with <br />landscaping and extend the 7 foot wide landscaped area across the front of the <br />adjacent lot. He explained that there is a problem with landscaping the side <br />setback because the adjacent gas station has an easement for a driveway across <br />the southeast corner. He also explained that a variance is also being requested <br />to eLisplay vehicles.in the 75 foot front setback: No change is planned for the <br />lighting or fixtures. There is also a proposal to combine the properties into <br />one. Mr. Conway clarified that some of the items shown on these plans were <br />actually addressed at a hearing last year. The members discussed what setbacks <br />should be required. Mr. Tallon questioned what imdue hardship would be involved <br />if the Zoning Code requirement were met, but then wondered if it would be as <br />aesthetically pleasing if the two setbacks were at different widths. He suggested <br />that perhaps 12 foot setback across the entire length, including the existing <br />lot, could be a compromise. He saw no reason to compromise on the 10 foot side <br />yard. Mr. Giesser explai.ned that an area where the existing builcling is located <br />will be curbed to display a vehicle. Mr. Skoulis suggested that they compromise <br />on the new lot instead of asking thetri to tear up the e.xisti.ng asphalt. Mr. Tallon <br />believed that if they want to eliminate the 20 foot of landscaping on the new <br />portion, the city should get something in return. Mr. Giesser noted that <br />landscaping was being added in the 7 feet. Mr. Tallon thought it might be <br />possible to display 1 vehicle on a pad on the southeast corner. City Engineer <br />3