Laserfiche WebLink
? <br />. ,? <br />discussed. Mr. Papandreas responded that they have no answer as yet. This is a <br />narrow leased strip of land and abuts property owned by the Mall, and it might be <br />used for additional parking or perhaps a small building. They do not want an <br />abandoned piece of land right at the front of the center, and will actively <br />market it. In reference to the landscaping, Mr. Smith advised that they have <br />added additional plantings; have changed to more appropriate trees and bushes on <br />the sides of the building; and ineorporated mounding and more foliage on the <br />large island by the drive thru as suggested by the Architectural Review Board. <br />Mr. Papandreas advised that it was determined at that meeting the landscape plan <br />could be presented to Mr. Zergott"directly for his approval, it would not have to <br />be discussed at a r,ieeting. They hope to get it to him prior to the B.Z.D. <br />meeting. Building Conmiissioner Coziway explained to Mr. Skoulis that if they go <br />for a variance for the signs, this request would have to go to A.R.B. prior to <br />B.Z.A. Mr. Skoulis moved to approve the proposal of Society National Bank to <br />construct a new free standing building at 26401 Brookpark Road, Great Northern <br />Shopping Center, incorporating the changes the builder has shown in the revised <br />dr•awing dated September 28, 1993 which includes the pedestrian cross walk and new <br />landscaping9 and to include all recommendations of the Architectural Review Board <br />and Planning Commission. It is this Gommission's tmderstanding that the landscape <br />plan will be reviewed by Mr. Zergott and forwarded to B.Z.D. before their meeting <br />and the Commission would also like the Traff-Pro report to accompany this motion, <br />seconded by L. Orlowski, and unanimously approved. If the A.T.M. out building is <br />not rerioved within the next year, Mr. Gorris asked that Mr. Papandreas return to <br />the Commission with some plan for that property. rlre Sandrock was advised that <br />this proposal would be heard by BZD on Thursday, October 7th, and that a <br />landscape plan would have to be submitted prior to that for review by P7r. <br />Zergott of the Architectural Board. <br />2) Halleen Chevrolet, Inc., 27932 Lorain Road. <br />Proposal to renovate building and to construet two mall additions. <br />Tabled at meeting of September 14, 1993. <br />Mra Giesser, attorney, presented the revised plans showing a11 parking spaces on <br />the property. Building Comnissioner Conway had reviewed the plan and had <br />discussed it with Assistant Law Director Dubelko. One hundred and forty seven <br />parking spaces are required for customer parking, the owner has estimated that <br />there are 200 new and used cars on the lot, there are 392 spaces shown on the <br />plan, the customer parking is basically those spaces around the building and two <br />roias to the rear, 18 more customer spaces will be needed and some of the spaces <br />on the eastern property line or in the back could be enlarged to be used for <br />customer parking. He clarified that most of the spaces shown are 8.5 foot w-i.de <br />and 9 by 18 foot spaces are required for customer parking, there are no specific <br />size requirements for display parking. One or two spaces on the side of the <br />building were not viable and were not counted. Mr. Conway reiterated that 147 <br />spaces are required for customers and must be 9 by 18 feet, 200 display spaces do <br />not have to be 9 by 18, they are showing a total of 392, but if they were striped <br />properly the minimum would be 350 and it is probably about 370 spaces. He advised <br />that there Nvas no designated loading faeility. He further noted that the former <br />Partner's Lounge property is in litigation, and is not part of this proposal. The <br />developer still must comply with illumination and. buffering that Planning <br />Cormission might deem necessary between commercial and residentialo I4r. Dubelko <br />and Mr. Conway agreed that, as stated in chapter 1161, the front set back is not <br />an issue at this time and the owner would not be required to bring that up to <br />code. r11c. Skovlis noted that this was tabled on September 14th for lighting and <br />landscaping, as well as parking. Mr. Giesser had not been advised of that and has <br />no plans for those items, but explained that there would be no changes to either. <br />2