12/12/1995 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

N?l '\Tr . not to be used to d.isplay cars. He did not know if the lots are going to be consolidated, since there was a concern that it would create a problem with signage. It was noted that the driveway was on the adjacent lot and Mr. Tallon advised that lots should be combined. Building Commissioner Conway eaplained that he would like to discuss this with the Law Uepartment, but he did not believe that they would have a right to have a sign on a lot with no bu.il8ing. When he first discussed this with the developers, he was not aware that the building was to be removed so it would probably be a variance issue. He explained that the amou.nt of sign area allowed is determined by the frontage of the building and believed that this could be presented that way to the board of zoning appeals. He pointed out that plauning commission had preferred that the lots be consolidated. Mr. Tallon noted that it sebmed that the sign would be illegal regardless of whether the lots are consolidated or not, but if they are not, there would have to be cross easements before the proposal could be approved since the drive would be on an adjacent lot. Mr. Harris stated that they had no signage that identified the dealership, their signs just identified the products. It was clarified that the commission had recommended that the C.E.I. light be removed, and low lighting be added. Mr. Harris was advised thaf the lot consolidation should be presented to the Engineering Department. After some discussion, it was decided that these plans do not accurately show the information needed: where the cars are to be displayed; the size of the parking spaces; the width of driveway between tlte parking spaces, and the front setback; some of the parking spaces did not appear to be workable, and no lighting was shown. The members agreed that the proposal should be tabled until a detailed plan, including landscaping, is presented so that it can be sent on to the architectural review board with recommendations. R. Tallon moved to continue Ganley Westside Import proposal at 25600 Lorain Road, until the next meeting. The motion was seconded by A. Mauning and unauunously approved. Mr. Harris was advised to get the revised plans to the building department at least a week before the meeting, and that they should also present cuts of the light fixtlues that are to be used. 4) Silverdale Plaza, 26324 Lorain Rd. Proposal to construct retail building. Referral to the board of zoning appeals is required. NOTE: Deed restriction filed would not permit the drive on Silverdale or a dumpster on the origina147 foot lot. It also required a landscaped mounded buffer to protect the next door neighbor begiuning at the front of the structure and ending at the rear of the house. Continued from plauniug commission on November 28, 1995. Mr. Strelau, architect, presented the revised plans and explained that they had met with the Building Commissioner and the city traffic engineer. He further advised that a letter had been presented requesting that the proposal be sent on the architectural review board. In response to the members' questions, he advised that the loading zone wi]1 be located at the northwest corner of the building approximately 25 feet from the receiving door, and will accommodate the cube type of truck that will be making deliveries of these items which are small. Mr. Brennan noted that they showed 33 foot high poles with 400 watt metal halide flood lights. Mr. Strelau advised that a photometric analysis is being done at this time and they are planuing to have a typical shoe-box fixture which would direct the light down but if the photometrics show any glare on the adjacent properties, they will shield the fixtures or reduce the size of the bulbs. Since the roof line would be 14 to 16 feet high, he was advised that the poles would have to be reduced, so that the bottom of the fixture would only be 16 feet high. Mr. Strelau further explained that the roof top units would be placed toward the front of the building so they would not be visible to the neighbors in the rear. Although the deed restriction does require a landscape buffer, Building Commissioner Conway advised that the buffer was required in the event that the lot was developed, it was not required while the lot remained vacant. He explained that there was a very small portion of the southeast corner of the building eucroached into the front setback. Mr. Strelau 2