03/26/1996 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

the laudbanked spaces were put in for their protection. Mr. Brennan noted that the fence and trees were put in for the neighbors protection, but removing the landbaukiug spaces would not remove the buffer Mr. Mongello pointed out that there was a 50 foot strip between the rear of their property which will probably never be developed. was concerned about the height of the trees. Mr. Menke would like the highest trees feasible for his protection at this time, specifically 10 or 12 foot trees, so he would not have to wait for years for them to grow that high; and he would like them staggered. Mr. Tallon explained that the developers agreed to try to plant 7 foot trees and they would be staggered, but the 10 or 12 foot trees might not thrive if they were transplanted. Ms. Kemp-Kopco advised that the Austrian pines grow 6 to 8 inches a year. It was clarified that the fence would be 7 foot high since it would be installed 1 foot off grade. Mrs. Menke stated that many of the trees that everyone is trying to save are all ready dead. Regard.ing the traffic light, Mr. Tallon suggested that he talk to a council person, since there were certain warrants that would have to be met. R. Tallon moved to approve the Seaman's Furniture, 24869 Lorain Road, proposal to construot addition to an existing building with the inclusion of the rear entrance which is to match the facade of the side entrance; the new landscaping plan number 2, the elimination of the light pole in the south east corner of the landbanked spaces. The motion was seconded by A. Manniug, and u.nanimously approved. The residents were advised that this would go on to bzd committee on Monday, April lst at 6:30 p.m. 2) Marriott Courtyard Hotel, permwent parcel 236-17-004, build.iug located on Country Club Boulevard, east of Lone Star Steak House. Proposal to construct hotel in Mixed Use District. Preliminary Land Use plan heard by planning commission on January 23, 1996. Requires refenal to board of zoning appeals. Mr. Moluse, and Mr. LaCarty, represented the developer. Mr. Moluse gave a brief overview of the proposal which is to be referred to the board of zoning appeals. The 122 room hotel is a limited service facility with no full service restaurant, only a breakfast bar, and no extensive conference facilities, only some meeting rooms. He explained that there would be two access points off Country Club Boulevard, one on the east and one on the west, with both drives leading to the port cochere. One hundred and twenty three parking spaces, 45 in front of the building and 78 in the rear, are planned. The "U" shaped building forms the courtyard on the south side which is enclosed by a garden wall and is extensively landscaped and includes seasonal flowers; it contains a gazebo, sun deck and walks. There also will be an interior swimming pooL The landscaping around the building and in the buffer areas is heavily planted, also with seasonal flowers. There is an existing 25 foot buffer between Lone Star and this property and they will be developing the 25 foot buffer that is required on the east. The building is residential in character with a pitched roo? balconies on the second and third levels and includes various building projections. There will be a canopy above the first floor that extends from the front door and this is also repeated in the rear. The building will require two setback variances: one for the port cochere and canopy which extend into the front setback and one for the eastern corner of the building which encroaches into the rear setback. They also need a variance for the rear 25 foot landscape barrier along I-480 which is shown as a miuunum of 10 feet but will widen out to 25 feet on the west. He noted that if they moved the parking out of this rear area, they would lose the courtyard, and since I-480 is about 25 feet lower than their property, the landscaping will not be seen. They are asking for variances for the number of signs, but not for the overall sign area, since they would like five signs instead of the three that they are permitted: a small build.ing sign over the front entrance; a logo sign on the rear; a ground sign at the main entrance; a smaller directional sign at the secondary entrance and a pylon sign on I-480. Mr. Brennan questioned the need for the signage in the reai since I-480 is lower and eastbound drivers will be past the off-ramp before they can see it, but the residents across 480 would 2