Laserfiche WebLink
Lorain Road, the rear of the lot will be used for storage and there will be customer parking on the <br />side of the building. There will be lighting as well as landscaping added to the site. Mr. Koeth <br />questioned what lots needed to be consolidated. Mr. Rymarczyk indicated that county records <br />show that there are two parcels involved and they would need to consolidate the two lots if this <br />proposal is approved. Mrs. O'Rourke questioned if there was a fence proposed for the rear of the <br />lot to buffer the neighbors. Mr. Suhyda indicated that they could place a fence in the rear of the <br />yard to buffer the residents. Mr. Spalding questioned what type of landscaping was proposed for <br />the rear area. Mr. Suhyda indicated that they would submit landscaping as well as fencing for the <br />rear of the lot. Mr. Koeth questioned if the Assistant Building Commissioner could review the <br />variances required. Mr. Rymarczylc commented that there would be 2 variances needed for the <br />building, 5 for the parking area and a variance for loading and unloading which the Planning <br />Commission could address. There is also a 1 foot variance required for the width of the driveway <br />and the curbing on the rear and side of the property will require variances. Mr. Koeth read aloud <br />the Iist of variances required on the site. Mr. Koeth remarked that as this will be a new building <br />there is no reason the applicant could not meet the code requirements. Mr. Suhyda suggested that <br />since it would be a car lot the show room and cars needed to be seen from the road. Mr. Hreha <br />indicated that he felt the building should be brought into compliance. Mr. Koeth questioned <br />where the loading and unloading zone would be located. Mr. Suhyda indicated that the new car <br />delivery will be in the rear of the building. Mr. Koeth questioned if there was enough room on the <br />lot for the turnaround. Mr. Suhayda reviewed what would be done for the turnaround. Mr. <br />Rymarczyk suggested that the turnaround would need to be 50 feet off the back of the building. <br />Mrs. O'Rourke questioned if there would be 120 cars stored on the lot. Mr. Suhyda indicated <br />that would be correct. Mr. Koeth remarked that the board would like to see a plan showing how <br />the delivery trucks would enter and exit the site. Mr. Asseff suggested that he would like to see <br />the building moved to the west so that the variances could be eliminated. W. Hreha indicated <br />that this is to many variances requested and the 75 foot should be adhered to on Lorain Road. <br />Mr. Allan remarked that he agreed that 10 variances are too much for a new building. Mr. <br />Spalding suggested that the applicant had not shown that the amount of variances being requested <br />was due to a hardship. All they have said is that is what they want. Mr. Asseff agreed that the <br />applicant had not shown hardship for the variances. Therefore, this many variances should not be <br />granted. Mr. Koeth commented that the board wanted to see a new plan showing the building as <br />well as the parking not requiring variances. The board would also like to see a drawing showing <br />how the delivery trucks will be handled. There needs to be a photoinetric and landscape plan <br />submitted the plan is to show a mounding with a board on board fence to buffer the rear <br />neighbors. W. Koeth questioned if the applicant wanted to return with modified plans or move <br />on to the Board of Zoning Appeals without their recommendation. Mr. Suhyda indicated that he <br />would make the required changes and return to the Planning Commission before going to the <br />Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Dubelko indicated that he wanted a note from the Law <br />Department for the record. It is common knowledge that both of the parcels in question are part <br />of a group of parcels that the City has planned to develop for a public library. It is not a Plaruung <br />Commission issue whether or not the City has plans for these parcels when discussing plans. It <br />should also be noted for the record, the developer has common knowledge of the Cities plans and <br />is moving forward and proposing a building on the lot. It should be further noted for the record <br />that at the last election the voters approved the money to develop these two parcels as well as <br />others that will be acquired to build a new public library on. He further commented that the <br />Planning Commission should not take what the City is doing into consideration when addressing <br />the parcels before tliem. Mr. Asseff questioned if there was a time table that went along with the <br />4