01/12/1988 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

PLANNINC CONKIISSION JANUARX 12, 1988 PAGE 4 for review. T. Morgan moved to refer the Columbia Village nroposal to ? the Architectural Board of Review.and to the Safety Denartment and to request the Fire Department to check the £ire hydrant location and to check on their £ire svstem requirements and also for the proper entrance and egress (turnarounds) for fire ea.uipment; we may nossibly reouire the landbanking of the green area for notential parking requirements if necessary; we must consider the Engineering Deuartment's req_uest relative to the permanent parceling of the land before the proposal is apnroved; we would request the Law Department to take a loolc at the two entrances to the corridor for their intem retation of that possi- bility in light of the 54 unit variance; to have the Engineering Department look at it from the standpoint of retention and drainage; to have the forester look at it .from the standpoint-of dense nlantings in the buffer zone between the proposal and the condominium tenants, as well as any nlantin? which might be necessary be'tween the proposal and the John Knox Church on the west; to ask the Law Devartment to look at tlie declaration as it D . ertains to the access road; and rea.uest that the forester nresent his view to the Architectural Board of Review. During.the discussion of the motion, Mr. Betts questioned if an ambi- guity exists in the codes on the issue of the two entrances to the corridor, is it in the Planning Commission's juri'sdiction to urge or make a policy-state-ment as to the findings of the Planning Commission. Mr. Dubelko stated that the Planning Commission has more discreation in the 71,Mxed Use District to make requirements that nerNaps are not svecified in the Zoning.Code to insure that the detailed nlans are in • the spirit of the approved preliminarv land use vlan and he will review the codes as it pertains to the matter of the two entrances to the corridor. Mr. Morgan pointed out that the develoner must nresent detai.led dxawings bf the landscape architecture to the Architectural Board of Review at which time the forester will review the nlans and give his recommendations. Mr. Morgan requested that the Building Gommiss_ioner bring complete sets of the original plans for the urevious vhases. •Motfon was then seconded by E. Traczyk, and unanimouslv approved. Mr..Morsan explained to the audience how.the nrouosal would proceed through the apv•roval process and advised that they would receive no fu7rther notices o£ .aieetings. Mr. Conway stated that if nronosal did not follow the normal vrocess, the condominium association would be nottfi:ed.. Mr. Morgan advised that he had received a covy of a letter sent to the Mayor from Sarah Ruane, an owner at Hyde Park, which out- lined the same objections to the vroposal as had been stated by others from the association. 3) Fish Furntture Comnany, 23770 Lorain Road Proposal to construct.an addition to existing structure (Variances and sgecial permit granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals _ January 6, 1988). . D'[r. Schill, architect, and Mr..Geller; manager of Fish Furniture, presented rev-ised plans which show 6 foot board on board cedar fence on rear property which was a condition of the variances which have ? been granted. The two level addition will have 7,500 square foot show room with storage on lower level (property slopes to rear); front.por- tion addition will: be colonial style with vinyl siding; rear uortion will be metal.sided; no dumpster is planned since trash is nicked un _