11/24/1992 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

? ? identified on the plan and all lights are to be shielded from adjacent residents and other businesses according to our code. 6) That an improved material, other than fiber glass be substituted on the roof of the dlunpster enclosure. 7) That the abandoned phone box be removed or relocated according to code. 8) That striping of the parking lot directional arrows be provided to show traffic flow as necessary. 9) That the entrance to the lot be identified so as to remove traffic from Hickory Lane. 10) That the Building Commissioner needs to determine if additional code compliance for sound proofing is necessary because of the nature of the business. 11) That the developers meet with the forester as well as the A.R.B. to not only select better buffering species of trees but also to determine any mattare trees that can be salvaged on the lot, be salvaged. 12) That the developer consider moving the sign closer to the entrance and making it into a ground sign. 12) The developer has mentioned that he is TTilling to post a bond with the city in good faith to provide for completion of the landscaping and all improvements. 13) That the 3 parallel spots that were mentioned by Mr. Conway in his letter be removed, or moved, or placed in compliance with our code. 14) That regarding the lack of the 20 foot landscape buffer on the.front, that the Building Co=issioner determine with the developer whether or not what is currently there is grandfathered in or should be in compliance with the code. The retention for the new parking area is to be referred to t.he City Engineer. This proposal must also be referred to the Safety Department. The motion was seeonded by L. Orlowski, and unanimously approved. Vice Chairman Orlowski clarified that the directional signs mentioned earlier might not be necessary with the new parking configuration. The residents taere advised that no further notices would be sent and that the A.R.B. meets December 16th at 5:30 in the front caucus room. Dr. A. Natesan, 23746 Lorain Road. Proposal to install parking and driveway on property to be converted to office use later. ? Referral to Board of Zoning Appeals will be requested. Dr. Natesan advised that he is requesting a conceptual approval to change a residence into a professional office. A variance for the width of the drivetiaay which goes back to the rear parking area will be needed as well as a variance not to ha.ve a landscape buffer on the east side and.a 1:5 foot variance for the landscape buffer on the west. There is one parking space in front. The lower level Nrith an entrance at grade in the rear will be converted into an art gallery. Mrs. Slezak, owner of the property to the east, advised that this house is her son's residence and questioned how a parking lot can be put on this size lot. She would like a fence between the her property and the proposed drive and parking lot. iMr. Telegdy, the present o?.mer of the property, advised that the drive would have to be right.on the property line, and that the Slezak house was much closer to Lorain Road than their house is. Mrs. Telegdy pointed out that this would be a professional building and would not generate nearly as rcuch traffic as the other businesses in the area do. She further explained that up until recently one foot of their driveway d.id encroach on the Slezak's property, however that has been removed, but there jaould be no room to put a fence on their property beside the drivea It was clarified that the Slezak house was almost on the sidewalk and that a fence would not be permitted in the first 50 feet. Mr. Thomas suggested that Mrs. Slezak talk with Dr. Natesan about what could be done and ha.ve him explain the nature of his business.. Mr. Skoulis suggested that Dr. Natesan install a fence (which he would maintain) on the Slezak property. Vice Chairnan Orlowski again explained that, according to code, a fence could not be installed in the fir.st 50 feet, but it could start at about the baek of.the house 5