Laserfiche WebLink
to construct a combination garage and storage builcling behind existing facility <br />to the Architectural Review Board for their input on the size, design, and color <br />scheme of the building and also to pa.y particular attention to any bu.ffering that <br />ma.y be needed on 3 sides of the building which face the residential lots on <br />Berkshire Road with conifer trees or whatever would be acceptable, and that the <br />developer present an amended site plan accurately showing the configuration of <br />the land bankecl parking spaces and access aisle or drive (.proper width, etc.) to <br />the Architectural Board, seconded by A. Skoulis, and unanimously approved. The <br />neighbors were advised of the dates and times of the Architectural Review Board <br />meeting and the next Planning Commission meeting. <br />5) Great Northern Dodge, 26100 Lorain Road. side entrance, <br />Proposal to alter facade of existing buildin'g, inst:all canopy ? <br />ancl construct display pads in front setback. <br />Mr; Shartman, owmer, and Mr. Fee, architect, presented proposal to add a white <br />fascia on the existing canopy on the south, east, and west side of bui.lding <br />including the installation of an entrance canopy on the east.side over the main <br />entrance. A new sign panel wi7-1 be installed with back lit letters in a Dodge red <br />and later when it is available a new momnnent sign will replace the existing pole <br />sign. Tao fifteen foot display pods are proposed for the front setback. He <br />.clarified that there was 20 feet between the entrance canopy on the east and the <br />entrance drive island. The existing land5caping will remain as is. Building <br />Commissioner Conway explained that the building is non-conforming now and a 40 <br />foot variance will be needed for the entrance canopy. Chairman Gorris read a memo <br />from the forester, D. Wendell, (see attached). A copy was gi.ven to Mr. Shartman <br />who explained that he was out of town,when the trees were removed, but that they <br />were not in good shape anyway. He is trying to clean up and gxade the back of the .. <br />property where a mound of dirt was left by the city when the recreation center <br />was built, and wi11 also be cleariing out the ditch on the property to keep it <br />from flooding. He has been working wi'th the Engineering and Service Departments, <br />but his company is doing the work, not-the city. In reference to a minor change <br />request to add a fence on the rear.of the property, Mr. Conway explained that he <br />received this request after t-he Planning Commission proposal was processed. EvEn <br />though the zoning maps showerl this portian of the property as residential, he <br />checked with the Engineering Department who advised that it had been rezoned. <br />Assistant City Engineering McDermott advised that Ord. 75-224 had rezoned this <br />rear portion from residential to comrnercial and that the Engineering Department <br />had no problem with the grading. Mr. Conway clarified that since this property is <br />commercial, this rear portion coul.d be developed by the owner. He suggested that <br />this request could be referred to both the Architectural Board and the Board of <br />Zoning Appeals at this time. Mr. Gorris stated that he is opposed to the display <br />pocls in the front setback, but thi5 decision would be up to the Board of Zoning <br />Appeals. The other members agreed and there was concern about this going to <br />A.R.B. first since there was no'landscaping shown around these pods and if a <br />variance was granted it would be granted after the Architectural Board had <br />reviewed the plan. Mr. Shartman explained that these pads are flush with the . <br />exi.sting grass, will not be lighted, and no additional landscaping was planned <br />around them. It was decided to refer this to both boards. A. Skoulis moved to <br />refer the Great Northern Dodge proposal at 26100 Lorain Road to alter the facade <br />of the existing building, install canopy on side entrance and construct display <br />pads in the front setback to the Architectural Review Board and the Board of <br />Zoning Appeals with the recommendation that the variance for the display pads in <br />front set back not be approved, but with.the recommendation that the setback <br />variance for the canopy be approved. Sinee the Commission is concerned about the <br />landsaaping around the pacis and if a varianee is granted it will be done after <br />the A.R.B. has given its input for the renovation of the fascia and landscaping, <br />6