05/14/1996 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

since the building is too close to the property line, and the rear landscaping is less than the required 15 feet. He would have no problem if project nu.mber 1 is approved as originally required, so that it could go directly on to BZD. Assistant Law Director Dubelko noted that the bu.ilding on project number 2 violates the Zoning Code, since it straddles the property line, but he did not think it would violate the code to have a lot with separate ownership, but he intended to check it out. Mr. Mawiing advised that this would be referred to the Law Department. Mr. Shartman stated that if tlie storage building would be a problem, he would withdraw it, but he was trying to deal with the owner to buy the property. As far as project number 1, he will accept all the previous conditions that were imposed on it in 1994. Mr. Gabriel, who owns property on Canterbury, advised that he has water problems on his property because the drainage ditch was originally put in only for houses, not for the businesses. Mr. McDermott advised that he cannot guarantee this retention will solve his problems, but he can guarantee that it will not make his problems worse. Mr. Gabriel also would like a solid fence instead of a chain link fence. Mr. Shartman offered to put slats in it with the original proposal, but the neighbors did not want them. Mr. Mauuing suggested that they plant some buslmes there. Mr. Shartman advised that he could plant more. Mr. Gabriel advised that this property was higher than his, so cars would be seen. Mr. Conway noted that this portion of the parking lot would be discussed with project 2, and perhaps the architectural review board can make suggestions. He pointed out that if they moved the building 50 feet off the property line as required, the entire building will be across the property line, not just the corner. It was decided that project 2 should come back from the Law Department before referring to board of zoning appeals.. T. Herbster moved to approve Great Northern Dodge, 26100 Lorain Road, proposal number 1 to construct au addition joining the showroom and service building, as apgroved previously by planniug commission July 26, 1994, with all recommendations and agreements that were made at that time and refer directly to BZD. Project number 2 will be continued until the neart meeting, May 28th, for an opinion from the Law Department and the commission requests that the site plan reflect both projects. The motion was seconded by T. Brennan, and unauimously approved. Mr. Gabriel was advised that no notices would be sent for the next meeting. IV. NEW DEVELOPMENTS AND SUBDIVISIONS: No items. V. COMMUNICATIONS: No items. VI. GOMIVIITT`EE REPORTS: The committee for the review of the zoning codes will meet tomorrow, May 15th at 7;30 p.m. VII. MINOR CHANGES: Three minor changes were discussed with Chairmau Tallon after the meeting. VIII. NEW BUSINESS: No items. IX. OLD BUSINESS: No items: X. ADJOURNMENT: T. Herbster moved to excuse the absence of Mr. Koeth, seconded by A. Manning and unanimously approved. A. Mauning, Vice B. Oring, Clerk of Commissions. 2