Laserfiche WebLink
.' <br />- needed for parking. Retention will be required per engineering department requirements. Mr. <br />?. Tallon indicated if parlcing is a problem, the commission will recommend some land banked <br />parking. It was recommended such land banked parking could be incorporated behind the <br />_ garage. Mr. Tallon identified land banked parking as something that is drawn in on the plan but <br />left green and not used u.nless it is needed. There were no further questions. <br />PI.EASE NOTE: There are two motions on the_J.C. Hair. Design proposal located at 28813 <br />Lorain Road. <br />MOTION 1: R. Tallon first moved to recommend that the board of zoning appeals grant J.C. <br />Hair Design Plus, 28813.Lorain Road, the following variances: 1) to use a residential dwelling <br />without having a private garage; 2) the five foot variance for the rear set back of the building; 3) <br />five foot variance for west side yard set back for parking area; 4) Approximately 2'6" variance <br />for the front set back of the build.ing; and 5) the 8 foot front setback for parking. In addition the <br />committee requests that the board of zoning appeals enforce the 25 foot radius requirement for <br />the apron and if any variances for parking are needed, that they be eliminated by utilizing land <br />banked parking. The motion was seconded by T. Brennan and unanimously approved. Motion <br />Carried. <br />MOTION 2: R. Tallon next moved to approve the proposal of J.C. Hair Design Plus, 28813 <br />Lorain Road, a proposal consisting of converting an existing one-story garage to retail use and <br />adding a 1439 square foot addition to the converted garage. The clerk questioned ifthe proposal <br />? would be refened to any other boards/commissions. Mr. Tallon amended the motion to reflect <br />the fact the proposal would be referred to.the arclutectural review board, engineering department <br />and city forester. Mr. Brennan questioned whether the commission should bring the proposal <br />back after review by the architectural review board. Mr. Tallon accordingly further amended his <br />motion to state that the proposal will be brought back after review by the architectural review <br />board. Mr. Brennan indicated that there has been no discussion of the elevations or color <br />selections. Mr. Cristou stated those details have not yet been completed. The motion, as <br />amended, was seconded by T. Brennan and unanimously approved. Mr. Rymarczyk questioned <br />whether the referral should first go to board of zoning appeals and then to architectiual review <br />board. Mr. Brennan questioned how the commission can refer the proposal to architectural <br />review board when elevations have not yet been reviewed. W. Tallon then requested that <br />Motion 2 be stricken from the record. Assistant Law Director Dubelko advised the motion <br />cannot be stricken as a vote has already been taken. He interpreted the commission's amended <br />motion to provide that the proposal is to be referred to the architectural review board, the city <br />forester, and the engineering department, and then returned to planning commission. Mr. Tallon <br />advised that elevations, material samples, landscaping, etc. will be needed for the architectural <br />review board's review. The clerk provided the applicant with a list of architectural review.board <br />requirements. It was noted that the next available board of zoning appeals meeting would be on <br />November 5, 1998 (7:30 P.M.) and the next architectural review board on November.3°18, 4998 <br />. <br />(5:30 P.M.) Mr. Rymarczyk advised that an application would have to be submitted to the board <br />of zoning appeals and the architectural review board, and would have to include all filing fees <br />• and required plans. Mr. Tallon then requested that the proposal be returned to platuung <br />commission on November 10, 1998, prior to going to the architectural review board. - Mr. <br />3 ?