07/12/1994 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

i .. ?., - off the snow in the winter months from the lights on Lorain Road and in the back. Mr. Shartman did not believe that these were his poles. Mr. Shartman explained that the lights were metal halide and were in a box type fixture. Mr. (iorris would like to see a lighting plan wheu this proposal returns, showing the height and location ofthe poles and a cut ofthe fixture. Mr. Fee stated that, if there were any H.V.A.C. units on the roo? they would be in the middle and would not be seen since they were low. R. Tallon moved to refer the proposal to construct an addition to the existing facility which will connect the two buildings of Great Northern Dodge, 26100 Lorain Road, to the Architectural Review Board with the recomnaendations that they look into screening the trash container as well as screening on the western property line, to review the materials for compatibility with the rest of the building , to look into the height of the building, and also look into the how the addition ties into the buildings. Wheu this retums, the Commission would like to see the lighting scheme, height of the poles, location, and a cut of the type of fixture, and we would also suggest that the owner call the Illumiuating Company about the shields on the one light, seconded by L. Orlowski, and unanimously approved. 5) Wendy's Restauraut, 26650 Lorain Road. Revision to Lorain Road driveway. Proposal originally approved by Plauning Commissiou May 10, 1994. Mr. Dixon, arclutect, explained that the attorney of the owners of the adjacent property advised them not to grant an easement. Since they have been unsuccessful in their attempt to explain to the owners that it would be to their advautage, they have returned with a plan showing the drive totally ou their property. Mrs. Difore, the owner, was present. N1r. Kikendahl, representiug Wendy's, stated that at first they were told there was an easement, but when it could not be found, they drew one up wluch was rejected, and then they made another easement that would be good as long as both parties still owned the properties. That one, too, was rejected. The attorney proposed a 30 day easement which would do them no good. He believed that this would be au advantage to their property. Apparently, at one time there was an easement with the condition that if one of the properties were sold, it would no longer be in effect. They can find nothing ou record now indicating that there was an easement. Mrs. Difore stated that she had an easement but she did not have it with her and maintained that she had shown it W. Kikendahl. He responded that she had shown him a deed with the standard lauguage that reads together with any easements of record, but the title company cannot find a record of an easement. She stated that they would not grant another easement without compensation, since Wendy's needed it more thau they do. She stated that compensation had neither been asked for, nor offered. W. Dixon responded that the Difores needed the easement more than Wendy's does because it will be difficult to get cars into the service bays without coming onto Wendy's property. When he explained that to their attorney he mentioned compensation, but they do not need the easement. Mr. Thomas asked if this would change the configuration of the adjacent driveway. Mr. Conway advised that tlus driveway would not meet the width requirements, but he will have to discuss, with the Law Department, whether or not it is legally non-conforming. Mr. Thomas clarified that in its current state, as a combined drive, it is acceptable, however, with Wendy's developing their own driveway, and removing part of the ingress and egress out of the adjacent drive, Mr. Conway must examine whether or not, this change is going to make their drive nou-conforming and illegal. Nir. Conway stated that they may order them to widen their drive to conform, depending 6