05/09/1989 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

? PLANNING COMMISSION P1AY 9, 1989 PAGE 3 advised that they did not own additional property to the southeast, they merely had an easement, they do own property to the west, but they cannot put the station there because of its configuration, Mr. Louie pointed out that they need a turning radius within the rear portion of the station in order to manuever an 8 by 40 foot trailer containing a mobile substation used in the event of a power failure. The proposal was explained to Mr. Dubecky who ownes the property.to the east. P•ir. Louie told him that the fence would be_about 45 feet away from his present building. Mr. Dubeckey did not believe that would be a problem and explained that he was planning to build an office building on the property. The members agreed that the station should be moved further back, but it was decided that the proposal could continue on to the Architectural Board of Review for their input. After some discussion it was decided to table the assembly plat.since this plat could be changed with the relocation of the facility, B. Gorris moved to refer the Centerior Energy Corporation proposal for the property located on the south side of Lorain-Road, west of Charles Road, to the Architectural Board of Review for their input as far as land- scaping is concerned not only as it is on Lorain Road on the north side of the facility, but also on the east and west side and any other recom- mendations that they might have; to, the Safety Department for their input; and I would like to make a recommendation that the developer do all pos- sible so that when they return to this board in two weeks that the whole power substation structure is moved back to the 50 foot set back or beyond, seconded by E. Traczyk, and unanimously approved. J. Thomas moved to table the assembly plat of these parcels for the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company until the next meeting, seconded by M. Betts, and unanimously approved: IIIo BUILDING DEPARTMENT REQUESTS: (Continued) 1) Air-N-Cruise Travel Agency, 26101 Country Club Blvd. Suite #103 (Victoria P1aza0. Amendment to detailed development plan (Mixed Use District), to wit, using one suite of an apartment for a business use. (Referred by Council 5/3/89). Building Commissioner Conway explained that when the Cellular One pro- posal was being reviewed by the Commission, the Building Department received a, comp,laint from a tenant that there were other businesses in the building. The owners of these businesses were advised that they should remove the business or come before the Commission. Mr. Conway further advised that since this building was approved many years ago, he had to assume that it had never been approved for a business use, and so this proposal was referred to the Council who in turn referred to the the Planning Commission. Mr. Berg, the owner, advised-that the business is a travel agency which specializes in cruise travel, he and his wife have been operating the business with 1 part time employee for the past 12 years at this location. He explained that he was told by a C.P.A. who now is affiliated with the city that the code would permit a business to be operated in a private residence as long as it did not create traffic or noise. Mr. Conway responded that the section of the code that Mr. Berg was referring to pertains to the residential district wherein a professional person can have an office in his own home. In response to the members questions, Mr. Berg advised that: he did not live in the building, that he did advertise as a cruise specialist, that most of their business is by telephone, that according to their own survey they did not average more than 2 customers a day inside the suite (about 20 to 30% of these were