12/12/1995 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. explained that there would be wrought iron fence, painted to match the building, in front of the dumpster. The members discussed the plans individually. It was noted that the closest handicapped spot was about 35 to 40 feet away from the building. In response to the members' questions, Mr. Georgalis, owner, presented a picture of the 8 foot high wall that was to be installed in the back and explained that it was the same type that the State of Ohio uses on the freeways. Mr. Strelau advised that the neighbors seemed to prefer the wood. fence to a masonry wall. Mrs. O'Rourke was concerned that this business might not stay and another with more traffic could come in. Mr. Georgalis advised that the company had made studies, and they would have a lease. Mr. Mauning and Mr. Brennan are both concerned that the placement of the sign would obstruct visibility and noted that the height did not confor'm to code. Mr. Strelau responded that tfiey did not intend to seek a variance for the sign, but in order to place it out of the prohibited triangular area, it had to be in that corner, but that drive was for entering traffic only, not exiting. The 6 foot high sign would only be 2 feet off the sidewalk. Since there will be no access to the rear of the store, a customer who parked in the back, would have to walk in the driveway to the front of the building. Mr. Strelau stated that a rear door would present a security problem, but a walk way could encroach on the setback. Mr. Georgalis believed that the back parking would be mostly for employees. The neighbor to the rear; Mr. Hoyte, advised that he prefened a solid barrier between the parking lot and his property. He explained that four rear yards would be visible from the rear lot and questioned why the commission wanted the side yard landscape buffers which would reduce the parking in the front thus bringing more,parking to the rear. He explained that there was a 3 foot grade difference between this property and the parking lot. He wanted protection from drivers going through his back yard; from junk and debris blowing into it; and from lights shiuing -onto his property. He and his neighbors believe that a solid wall would keep garbage on this property and give them more privacy than an earthen mound with landscaping. There had been a plan for a 6 foot brick wall, but that would only give them 3 foot of protection. He suggested that an 8 foot fence on a 2 foot mound would protect them from lights as well. W. Tallon asked that the developer bring a topographical survey to the next meeting so that the commission could determine the height of the barrier, and he advised that they would probably require a mound with a solid wood or solid masonry wall. Mr. Herbster noted that the 15 parking spaces planned would not be enough for a video store. Mr. Brennan agreed. Since board of zoning appeals would not be meeting until February, Mr. Strelau asked if the proposal could be presented to the architectural review board first. The members did not believe that they could make recommendations to the architectural board without seeing the topo and -the plans for the wall. After discussion of the various meeting dates, it was decided that this could be continued until the next planning coimnission meeting and proceed to the architectural board in January. R Tallon moved to continue the Silverdale Plaza proposal, 26324 Larain Road, until the neart meeting at which time they will present a topo so that the barrier on the north property line can be discussed. At the same time, the developer should present plans showing the light poles reduced so that the bottom of the fixture is no higher than the roof line, not the mausard line; a detail of the roof top mechanical equipment on the elevation so that the commission can see the line of site, or else a detail of these units on the ground; and ask that the developers look into putting the utilities undergrou.nd The motion was seconded by A. Manning, and unanimously approved. Mr. Brennan stated that he wanted to go on record that he agreed with Mr. Herbster that this was the wrong concept for this parcel since there is a real traffic problem there and this will add to it immensely. He believed that the developer was addressing the impact on the neighbors, but the traffic problems would still exist. - 5) BP Oil Company, 29131 Lorain Road. Proposal to construct gas station (existing station and adjacent mini-mart will be demolished). Proposal to be referred to board of zoning appeals. , , 3