04/25/1989 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

PLANNING COP4NIISSION APRIL 25, 1989 PAGE 2 ` grass and has not been used. P1r. Paradise pointed out that there would not be the amount of traffic that Pizza Hut or Buckeye Lanes would have, and mentioned several businesses with drives on side streets:; pointing out that he preferred to have the drive for the employees of the building in the rear and suggested that perhaps he could chain the drive off in the' evening. He further stated that they have owned the property since 1962 and that it is?.unjust to deny him this access to the':office building. In reference to the hedges mentioned in the Architectural Review Board meeting, Mr. Mongello advised that it would appear they are probably not on this property but that a survey is underway at this time. Building Commissioner Conway clarified that the overall parking does conform to code, and that his letter (submitted at the last meeting, merely pointed out a discrepency between his figures and the developers. Regarding the driveway, Mr. Morgan pointed out that in the last few years the Commission has tried to restrict drives from businesses onto residential streets whenever possible and he does not believe it is necessary to have a drive onto Ranchview. Mr. Bowen agreed and stated that drivers could use this drive to cut through and avoid the intersection. Mr. Morgan and Mr. Thomas both stated that, if there was a problem in the future, the developers could request this drive.then. Mr. Conway advised that the Architectural Board had approved only the concept of the signage, not the square footage which must conform to codeo T. Morgan moved that the proposal to construct a dealership which includes the relocation of the existing building to the rear of the property which will be converted to an office be approved by the Planning Commission with the stipulation that the rear driveway is not part of the plan and with the recommenda- tion of the Architectural Board of Review at their April 19th meeting and also including the comments of the Police Captain of April 14th, seconded by R. Bierman. Roll call on motion: Morgan, Bierman, Bowen, Traczy, and Thomas, yes.. Mr. Betts abstained. At this point CTia.i.rman Thomas advised that the forester fiad no problem with removing the two trees as shown on the plan and that the Police Department had no objection to the plan especially since there is no drive onto Ranchview,.and the Fire Depart- ment stated that fire hydrants must be provided for both the new building and the relocated office building as per city code. Mr. Mongello was given a copy of the reports. 3) Bucknell Building, 27709 Lorain Road Exterior renovation to existing building. Heard by the Architectural Board of Review April 19, 1989. Chairman Thomas read the Safety Department reports. The Police Depart- ment had no objection and the Fire Department had no objection but pointed out that special attention should be given to the means of egress from second floor apartmen.ts. Hallway and stairway interior finish must comply with building code standards and outside fire escape should be inspected to insure structural integr.ity; Mr. Porter, archi- tect, stated that no site work will be done with this phase of the project, but hopefully it will be done under a county program during the second phase. Mr. Conway advised that this building is a non-conforming struc- ture, as far as parking requirements are concerned as long as the use remains as mercantile the parking does not have to conform, but there is not sufficient parking under the code. He further advised that there are always inspections during construction and that apartments ar.e in- spected annually. Regarding the objections of.the adjacent neighbor, Mr. Porter advised that property next to him is actually owned by the medical building and since they only lease parking spaces from them, they cannot erect a fence on that property. Regarding his comments ,