05/25/1982 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

•.J ,_ PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 25, 1982 PAGE 4 (6) Rad Air (J. Bird), 24260 Lorain Rd. Exterior alteration of building Heard by the Architectural Board of Review May 17, 1982. No representative was present. This proposal had been re- jected by the Architectural Board of Review. Building Comnissioner Gundy stated that he did not believe that the future stone would be too heavy to use on the building. Mr. Morgan stated that the roof being cut out around the sign would probably not be a problem since it would appear that the company is planning to remain there for some time. The problems of the electric wires would be the concern of the Building D,epartment. R. Perla moved to table the Rad Air proposal, seconded by J. Roberts, and unanimously approved. The Building Department is to request that representatives of Rad Air be present at the next meeting. (7) Speedy Muffler King (L & L Construction), 4565 Great Northern Exterior alteration to building. Heard by. the Architectural Board of Review May 17, 1982. Mr. Pulka of L& L Construction demonstrated how the bottom flashing would be turned to prevent water from getting behind the mansard. He also explained that painting the flashing would negate the warranty on the finish. He also explained that the mansard is 18' in the air, 6Z' would be blue, 3/4" on the bottom and 24" on the top would be white. T. Morgan moved to approve the Speedy Muffler mansard as per the rec- ommendations of the Architectural Board of Review with the exception that the bottom and top flashing will remain the normal white color as warranteed, seconded by R. Perla, and unanimously approved. (8) Sparks Tune Up (W. Durica, Jr.), 27045 Lorain Rd. Proposal to convert former Sunoco gas station to tune up shop. Heard by the.Architectural Board of Review Ma.y 17, 1982. The Architectural Board had questioned why no 7' set back had been required when the use of the building changed. Assistant Law Director J. Dubelko advised that.this is a non-conforming building and that if the use'is chariged the building still remains non-conforming and that':the.7' set back requirement would not apply. Mr. Durica•expiained that he prefers-not to put in the additional parking at the.rear of the building as recommended by the Architectural Board since normally they should not need it. If at a later date they would find that the extra parking is necessary, they wil•1 pave the rear of the property. The Commission agreed with the Axchitectural Board that the parking space next to the pole sign.would be difficult to exit. The Commission discussed the wall sign which includes the statement "39.90 including parts and ljalior"., and they . ,