Laserfiche WebLink
<br />for the present, they are going to use the existing paving and lighting that is on the site. Some time next <br />summer, they intend to expand the paving and probably add some lighting. Thexe are two Ilhuniuating <br />Company flood lights on poles now. Mr. Tallon advised that the commission has been trying to <br />eliminate this type lighting, and suggested that ground type lighting that just illuuunated the cars would <br />look much better. Mr. Herbster asked if the parking lot could be moved closer to Lorain Road in order <br />to save some trees. Mr. Ricchetti stated that trees are not compatible with their business, and they did <br />intend to remove them eveutually. There will be no building on the property at all and the lot will be <br />used for storage and display. Mr. Manning believed that they have already done what they are asking <br />for. Mr. Tallon stated that if they have any cars in the front 75 feet at present, they should remove them, <br />whether they are being stored or displayed. Building Commissioner Conway advised that if they are only <br />asking to display 3 cars in front, the row of parking spaces in the 75 foot front set back could not be <br />used to display cars. Mr. Harris responded that this parking was for customer or employee parking. Mr. <br />Conway noted that the license plates on these cars should not be dealer plates. Mr. Tallon cautioned <br />that when they come before the boards, their property should not be cluttered, it should conform. Mr. <br />Conway advised that if tlus variance is granted, the developers must retiuu with a laudscape plan and <br />also go on the architectural review board after that. Mr. Harris presented drawings of the sign and Mr. <br />Conway explaiued where it could be put without variances. Mr. Harris stated that they did not intend to <br />ask for variances for the sign. City Engineer Deiclunaun recommended that they consolidate the two <br />parcels. Mr. Harris explained that the real estate company owned the property and Ganley leased it and <br />questioned if there would an advautage in consolidating the lots. Mr. Tallon believed that the city could <br />control the development more easily. Mr. Deichmann advised that since the access is through a separate <br />parcel, they would need cross easements. It was clarified that the plans stated that they are removing the <br />curb cut on this lot, and using the adjacent drive. Mr. Deichmann advised them to have a plat drawn by <br />a registered surveyor and present it to the city. Mr. Harris was concerned that tlus would cause a <br />problem with the signage, since he understood that he could have a separate free standing sign for each <br />lot. Mr. Conway disagreed and explained that this use would be contingent upon the adjacent property <br />being a new car dealership so that would not give them the right to a separate sign, and a pole sign <br />would need a variance regardless. He further advised that if they submit the plat in time, the <br />consolidation could be done while this proposal is going through boards. R. Tallon moved to refer <br />Ganley Westside Imports (formerly Glitz) 25700 Lorain Road, proposal to demolish existing building <br />and use lot for used car display and parking for adjacent car dealership, to the board of zoning appeals <br />with the recommendation that the variance be allowed as three individual pods in an oval shape in order <br />to allow wider width on the sides which is to be kept as close to the size of the cars as possible and with <br />landscaping in between. Also contingent upon a lot consolidation and that the cars be removed from the <br />75 foot frontage immediately. The motion was seconded by A. Manning and unavunously approved. <br />N. NEW DEVELOPMENTS AND SUBDIVISIONS: <br />1) Hawkins Avenue Re-Dedication Plat. <br />The proposal, by the city, is to accept for right-of-way dedication, a previously vacated (Ordinance No. <br />79-94) portion of Hawkins Avenue, from the north line of Vincent Drive Northerly (approximately <br />145.15 feet, centerline distance) to the City of North Olmsted north corporation line. <br />City Engineer Deichinann explained that this street had been vacated, but since it had been paved and <br />the city uses it for storage of construction equipment and materials it really should be re-dedicated. <br />There are two drrveways going onto the street. Since the city has been using it, there has been a <br />question as to who was responsible for the maintenance. The members had no problem with the <br />6