01/31/1996 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.? ' • ? J '° ? yr Cliairman Gomersall called all interested parties before the board. The oath was admiuistered to Mr. Strelau, architect, Mr. Hamilton, attorney, and Mr. Georgalis, owner. Mr. Gomersall advised that the members had read all the planuing commission minutes and realized that this had originally been presented to the city in August. Mr. Strelau explained that not only had they been before plauniug commission several times, they had also met with Mr. Conway and members of the Engineering Department to come up with a development for this parcel that will minimi?e the impact on the city ordinances. At one time there had been 20 variances, and this request is for 12, however some of these were requested by planuiug commission. He explained the variances as described in his letter of January 16th: The front yard setback variance is for a corner of the bu.ilding. Variances 2 through 6 all relate to the southerly parking lot along Lorain Road where a 20 foot setback is required, and the proposed setback ranges from 23 foot on the easterly side (where a parking space was elimiuated) to 10 feet on the west; and one parking space encroaches slightly on the east buffer. On the westerly side similar variances are needed, a 2 foot variance is required for the side yard setback and a 2 foot variance for parking within the 10 foot side yard setback. He noted that if they installed the required side buffer areas, the parking could not conform to code, but, with the variances, there will be a ininunum of 8 feet of landscaped area on both sides. Since they should have two driveways for more than 20 parking spaces, a variance will be required, however, he clarified that even though there was only one curb cut, the drive will be divided so that there would be entrance and exit drives. This driveway exceeds the maximum width stipulated by code; but the city traffic engineer suggested the design with two lanes and a divider separating them. Law Director Gareau questioned if a tractor-trailer could use that drive. Mr. Strelau advised that the type of tenants that they are negotiating with will have their deliveries by UPS, Fed. Ex., etc. or cube trucks, not semis. He pointed out where hirning radiuses were shown on the plan. Regarding the driveway not being at 90 degrees to the street, this design was suggested by the city traffic engineer, and the egress drive is at 90 degrees. Signage will indicate entrance/egress. The loading zone is not 50 feet from the residential area, but it is adjacent to the delivery doors, and the ouly way to conform would be to have the loading zone in front which would require unloading across the public parking, through the drive, and into the back door. The neighbor had been present earlier and had advised that he wanted a fence and heavy landscaping, but since he had no problem with the plan, he left the meeting. Mr. Strelau further advised Mr. Gareau that they are adhering to the deed restrictious on the rear lot. There are over lapping setback requirements for the sign which would prevent them from having any sign; the plans indicate the 35 foot prohibited triangular area and the 25 foot side line restrictions. Plauning commission had suggested it being on the west where the parking space had been eliminated. These plans also include the other requests of planning commission: a hallway from the rear door to the sales area had been included; the light poles have been lowered to the height of the building; the fence will be 8 feet high from the highest grade all the way across the property. A memo from Police and Fire Departments stated that they had no objection as long as they followed code. A memo from the Assistaut City Engineer recommended approval of the 34 _foot wide drive and counter- clockwise front parking lot circulation; agreed with removing first parking space on the east; but advised that a right turn only restriction out of the site is unnecessary since the proposed drive is almost exactly opposite the westbound Brookpark to eastbound Lorain intersection and believed that there should be no sight problems for drivers turning left. Mr. Gomersall noted that everyone seems to agree with the proposal except some members of planning commission. Mr. Purper stated that he had doubts about tlus request, until it was explained. The other members agreed. Mr. Maloney hopes that they do not get a tenant who has deliveries by semis. R. Gomersall moved to grant the request of Silverdale Plaza, 26324 Lorain Road, for an approximate 2 foot variance for the front setback for building. Violation of Ord. 90-125, Section 1139.07. A 10 foot variance to have parking in 20 foot front 7