Laserfiche WebLink
v <br />IF 0, <br />and an 8 foot rear setback variance. In reference to the pylon signs, Mr. Dixon <br />agreed to move it back 2 feet so they would need a 3 foot variance for it. Mr. <br />Conway advised that a variance was needed to have a second wall sign, but the <br />total square footage of all the signs is under what is allowed. Because this is a <br />corner lot, Mr. Gorris stated that he had no objection to two wall signs as long <br />as long as the square footage did not exceed what is permitted. In response to <br />the members questions, Mr. Dixon advised that the width of the parking lot side <br />drive was 23 feet, and that the western most drive was 9 feet w-ide, but at the <br />drive-thru window the drive is 14 feet wide so there is room for circUlation, and <br />the west drive also served as the entrance to the adjacent Tony's Auto Shop. Mr. <br />Orlowski did not believe that the driveway which was eliminated was used very <br />much and he did not believe tha.t there was a real problem with the combined <br />drives, but he thought that perhaps a planter and a parking space should be <br />removed to have a better ingress/egress. Mr. Thomas believed that the Commission <br />is required to maintain appropriate ingress/egress on a parcel, and if there is <br />an easement then some definite planning is needed to avoid accidents. Mr. <br />Orlowski stated that the architect might look at removing 6 feet of landscaping <br />and parlcing space number 1 to create a large enough inbress/egress so there would <br />not be a problem. Mr. Dixon thought having two drives adjacent to one another <br />would cause more of a problem. Mr. Thomas suggested that he design a driveway <br />that makes sense for both parcels and allow customers to exit safely onto Lorain <br />Road assuming that they have the right to use both parcels. The Commission is in <br />favor of sharing accesses. Mr. Miller noted widening the drive might make it more <br />of a hazard for pedestrians. Mr. Gorris stated that that it might not be <br />necessary to widen it, but if it is shared, it should be done legally. Mr. Thomas <br />noted that the drive shared by D.O. Summers and the Muffler shop could be very <br />hazardous, however since neither has much traffic, there have been no real <br />problems. However, there is always the possibility that another use with more <br />traffic could go into either store. He suggested that there might be some way to <br />direct the traffic by installing some curbing or a divider so there is no <br />crossover. Mr. Dixon stated that they could add another drive, but he was not <br />sure that would resolve the problem, and the closer the drive is to the <br />intersection the worse that situation would be. They will study this and perhaps <br />at ieast add some signage. He questioned if, legally, they could ask the other <br />business to move their drive and noted that the other drive is not wide enough to <br />be a drive by itselfo Mr. Dubelko advised tha.t neither the city, nor Wendy's <br />could not compel them to change their drive which is already approved, but they <br />might be willing to present some kind of a joint plan. He would have to study <br />this development and how it was approved before advising if the city could force <br />them to widen the drive to conform. Mr. Dixon advised that the parking spaces <br />shown are 16 feet wide and overhang the cars 2 feet over the curb along Sparky <br />Lane. Mr. Conway advised that cars are allowed to hang over by 2 foot, but <br />normally there is a 10 foot landscape buffer, in this case there will only be 2 <br />feet. He questioned if they should present a new plan to Mr. Griffith so he could <br />review the traffic pattern. Mr. Dixon also noted that the business next door had <br />service bays which opened toward Wendy's and there is only about 28 feet from the <br />building to the property line, so it would not be in their interest to install a <br />fence. The members again mentioned that this use could change. Mr. Miller asked <br />if the city would be liable if someone is injured by a car which backed into a <br />space and was overhanging the sidewalk on Sparky Lane. 11r. Dubelko stated that if <br />it is a planning decision, normally the city is not liable, but there is a <br />standard that the city is not to obstruct a sidewalk. He advised that if the <br />Commission believed that it was a bad plan, they should not recomnend it. Mr. <br />Orlowski suggested "head in only" signs in this area. Mr. Tallon suggested <br />3