12/06/2001 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

? Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section, 113 5.02 D-1 and 113 5.02 D-5. The motion was seconded by J. Konold and unanimously approved. Variances Gpanted 7) Halleen KIA; 27726 Lorain Rd Request for variance (1123.12). The proposa.l consists of renovating three buildings and automobile parking. The following variances are requested: A special pernut to add to two (2) non-conforming buildings. 1) A 45-ft. variance for building front yard setback (Porter), (code requires 75 ft., applicant shows 30 ft.), section (1139.07). 2) A 45-ft. variance for building front yard setback (Lorain), (code requires 75 ft., applicant shows 30 ft.), section (1139.07). 3) A 63 ft. variance for parking display of inerchandise (Lorain), (code requires 75 ft., applicant shows 12 ft.), section (1139.07). 4) A 65 ft. variance for parking display of inerchandise (Dewey), (code requires 75 ft., applicant shows 10 ft.), section (1139.08). 5) A 66 ft. variance for parking display of inerchandise (Porter), (code requires 75 ft., applicant shows 9 ft.), section (1139.08). 6) A variance for a second wall sign (code permits 1, applicant shows 2), section (1163.27 A). 7) A 6 inch variance for height of sign (sidewall), (code pernuts 4 ft., applicant shows 4.5 ft.), section (1163.27 C). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section, 1139.07, 1139.08, 1163.27-A, and 1163.27-C. Chairman Maloney called a11 interested parties forward to review their request. Mr. Suhayda, the Architect Mr. Halleen, the owner, Mr. Kula; General Manager of KIA Dealership, Mrs. Smith, Mr. Barry and Mr. Jordan abutting neighbors all came forward to be sworn in and review the request. Mr. Suhayda indicated that the project was before the board last year in 2000. The existing Domino building will be renovated. The landscaping and parking is the same as last year, the only difference will be that the building scheduled for the north west corner was eliminated. The proposed lighting and buffering will be the same as last year's proposal. He suggested that Landmaxks and Council both wanted the parking close to Lorain Road. They wanted it to stay in line with the buiIding across the street. Mr. Gareau indicated that the plans tonight are slightly different from what Council approved a year ago. Mr. Maloney indicated that the Planning Commission made a few recommendations such as, a 35-foot setback with landscaped greens with three car pads to allow display of a few cars with ground lighting. He questioned if the applicants considered following Planning Commissions request. Mr. Suhayda indicated that the owner has chosen to keep it the way it is currently designed. Mr. Gareau indicated that it was not fair for the applicant to say that Council had already approved the current proposal because it is not the same as last year. Nk. Halleen indicated that the existing building will achieve the same thing; as they will be using face brick to give the existing building the same face front as last years proposed building had. Mr. Gareau questioned if the applicants had plans for the building that was approved last year. The clerk indicated that she had the plans from the prior year that the board could review. 1VIi-. Konold indicated that the plans tonight are not the same as last years. Mr. Gareau questioned if Council had seen the cunent plans that the board is looking at tonight. Mr. Suhayda indicated that council had not seen the new plans. Mr. Jordan indicated that the Planning Commission asked for changes at their meeting i.e. lighting, landscaping, and driveway on Dewey Road be eliminated. Mr. Rymarczyk suggested those were recommendations made by Planning Commission but no motions were made on the suggestions. Mr. Jordan indicated that he would like to go through each variance needed and make sure that the access that was denied on Dewey road would be covered again at this meeting. Mr. Rymarczyk indicated that the board could only address the variances before them tonight. Mrs. Smith questioned if the variances were required for the applicants to do the work proposed. Mr. Rymarczyk indicated that the applicants do need the variances listed to move forward with their plans. Mrs. Smith questioned the variance that is listed for Dewey Road. She objects to the parking variance along Dewey, as well as drainage, as the road was re-paved. Mr. Barry questioned ?