Laserfiche WebLink
? <br />? <br />advised that displaying cars in the front is necessary and they will still <br />request a variance. Mr. Thomas responded that he would.recorrunend that this <br />variance not be granted, especially since there was litigation with another <br />dealer for displaying cars. He suggested that the developer discuss.this with the <br />Law Department before pursuing a variance. Mr. Skoulis pointed out that there was <br />a raised concrete plaza in front of the propnsed building which would.be an ideal <br />area on which to display cars. Mr. Sto.yanov responded that the plaza would be the <br />same height as the floor of the building and probably would be used for display <br />and would also have some planters. He noted that parking of vehicles was allowed <br />behind the 20 foot setback, and was advised that this was for customer parking. <br />Mr. Thomas pointed out that there would be pole lights directly over these pads. <br />Mr. Mortach, a neighbor who lives about 500 yards behind the Nissan Dealer, <br />objected strenuously to the lights on the Lexus lot, stating that he could read <br />inside his house at night by these lights without any on in his house. He has <br />complained to the Lexus management., but nothing was done, and he thinks he called <br />the city once. When the Lexus proposal was discussed they were told that all the <br />trees would be left in back, but they were cut down. Iie maintained that this was <br />decided at a second meeting to which the neighbors were not invited. He has no <br />probl.em with lights on the Nissan property, but he hopes no lights will be added <br />to Lexus, and would like something done about Lexus. Mrs. Stephen, who lives <br />behind Lexus, stated that cars drive though the lot all night long and the lights <br />shine directly into her family room. She agreed that the trees were supposed to <br />remain, but were removed, and she ean see the entire parking lot. Originally the <br />dealer said that there would be 30 cars on the lot, but she estimated that there <br />are 150 at this time. She would like a fence installed behind both buildings, and <br />stated that she can hear the public address system and the radios which are <br />played in the garage. She too complained to the Lexus people, but received no <br />reply. She did not complain to the cityo Mr. Thomas and Mrs. 0'Rourke suggested <br />that a mound with a fence on top might help. The neighbors were advised to <br />complain to the city when there are noise or light problems. Mr. Conway asked <br />that they call the Building Department the next morning and make formal <br />complaints, but he believed that some.of these problems could be eliminated with <br />this proposal and suggested that the 'fence that they were planning to reloeate <br />could be installed on the rear instead of the side. Since this is to be one <br />property, the members agreed that a revised landscape plan should be presented <br />which will provide buffering (preferably a berm with a fence and evergreens on <br />top) aeross the rear of both the Lexus lot and the new Infinity lot to prevent <br />light and noise nuisance to the residents in the rear. The neighbors maintained <br />that hundreds of trees were removed in the buffer. Mr. Stoyanov responded that <br />the only trees that were removed were in the parking area. Mr. Mortach believed <br />that originally only 35 cars were to be stored, now there are about 135, and <br />believed that this was decided at a meeting to which the neighbors were not <br />invited. Mr. Conway responded that the only change to the plans was for an <br />addition to the service area, no additional trees were to be removed. J. Thomas <br />moved to refer the Metro Lexus/Infinity development to the Architectural Review <br />Board with the request that they design and specify a combined mound and fence <br />that will follow the entire rear property line of the development in order to <br />provide buffering (at this point Mr. Orlowski suggested tha,t the mound should <br />follow the rear of the parking area since this was higher than the rear property <br />line). Mr. Conway pointed out that since the members do not want the display of <br />vehicles in the front, it might be more advisable to send this to the Board of <br />Zoning Appeals first because if the variance is not granted there will be a <br />change to the site plan. Mr. Thomas agreed and withdrew his motion. Mr. Stoyanov <br />agreed to submit revised plans which will reflect what was expressed regarding ' <br />2