Laserfiche WebLink
? <br />? <br />stated that tlus would be a non-illuminated directional sign and he believed it was necessary because the <br />front of the building would not be seen because of the trees. The commission will review this later. <br />3) Ganley Westside Imports, 25600 Lorain Road (formerly Glitz, 25700 Lorain Road). <br />Proposal to demolish existing building and use lot for used car display and parking for adjacent car <br />dealership. <br />Heard by board of zoning appeals December 6, 1995. <br />Withdrawn by the developer until the next meeting. <br />4) Silverdale Plaza, 26324 Lorain Rd. <br />Proposal to construct retail build.ing. Referral to the boaxd of zoning appeals is required. <br />NOTE: Deed restriction filed would not permit the drive on Silverdale or a dumpster on the origina147 <br />foot lot. It also required a landscaped mounded buffer to protect the next door neighbor begiuuing at <br />the front of the structure and ending at the rear of the house. <br />Continued from plauuing commission on December 12, 1995 <br />Refenal to board of zoning appeals will be requ.ired. <br />Mr. Strelau, architect, explained that some of the issues mentioned at the last meeting which have been <br />addressed on the revised plans and in the letter dated December 26th. He detailed the items that had <br />been done: building heights have been provided; a lighting consultant has been hired and a photometic <br />chart submitted; roof top sight lines are shown on SD2; traffic counts are addressed in the letter; truck <br />radius addressed on sheet SD1; the size of the sign has been_reducecl and the sign relocated to conform <br />to code; the proposed walkway was addressed in the letter; the topography has been added to the site <br />plan and also indicated on sheet SD1 and he concluded that they believe all of planning commission's <br />concerns have been addressed. He advised that the photometric plan was designed by a fixture <br />manufacturer and, if there were a complaint on the lights, they would correct it. Chairman Tallon <br />advised that, if they submit the plan, they are responsible for it regardless. of who did it. He would like <br />the top of the fixrture in the rear to be no higher than 12 feet above the grade of the fiuished floor and <br />questioned why the bulbs were 175 watt. Mr. Strelau advised that this was to provide security lighting <br />to the rear parking lot and driveway. He clarified that the deliveries would be by UPS, etc., and after the <br />fixtures are installed there will be no tractor trailers or large delivery trucks. Assistant Building <br />Commissioner Rymarczyk had presented a letter listing 12 variances that would be required which Mr. <br />Strelau had received late in the afternoon. He advised that he was aware of the variances, and will <br />resolve any that he can; however, the setback variances cannot be changed, and some of the variance <br />mentioned were discussed at the planning commission meetings. They believed that they_ have a <br />legitimate hardship regarding the placement of the signs. Mr. Brennan disagreed that they had a <br />hardship, since they have an existing smaller building on the property, and the signage is at the second <br />busiest intersection in northeast Ohio and is blocking the exit of the adjacent restaurant. Mr. Strelau <br />responded that this was an entrance only drive, and that there is no way that the sign location can <br />conform to code. He suggested that this might be an area where a pole sign should be permitted. Mr. <br />Manning agreed with Mr. Brennan, and stated that he could see no hardship since they are increasing <br />the size- of this building to twice that of what is there. He pointed out that they are requesting 12 <br />variances. Mr. Strelau only meant that the sign location was a hardship. Mr. Geargalis, the owner, <br />stated that this 6,402 square foot is below the 25% maxumum lot coverage and is only about 19%. He <br />maintained that the city code stated that he was entitled to cover 25% of the lot. He noted that they only <br />wanted a 2 foot variance on the landscape buffers which would only be 600 square feet, in order for the <br />residents to enjoy about 4,000 square foot of green area. He stated that previously the commission had <br />3