07/22/1997 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Great Northern Dodge type style. Mr. Brennan wondered if Ganley would have a problem upgrading the style of the building. Mr. Stoyonov responded that this is Ganley's corporate design. Mr. Tallon questioned if the main build.ing has been addressed per architectu.ral review board recommendations. Mr. Stoyonov clarified the suggested changes have been presented to Ganley corporate owners, however nothing has been worked out to date. He requested that the planning couimission approve the proposal as submitted with the stipulation that sketches of such revisions will be presented for approval at a later date. Mr. Tallon opened d.iscussion up for the audience, but no interest was expressed. R Tallon moved to accept the proposal to construct a building addition for Ganley at 25600 Lorain Road with site improvements, landscaping and bu.ilding renovations with the condition that this approval be contingent upon architectural review board's receipt and approval of changes made to the main building; the lighting is to be marked 20 feet above finished grade; the arbor vitae are to be replaced with taxus as per Mr. Zergott's recommendations; the maple tree is to be saved with one parking space on the south west comer being removed as per recommendations of the city forester; and the city forester is to be contacted prior to doing any work around or near the trees on the site. The motion was seconded by T. Brennan and unanimously approved. N. NEW DEVELOPMENTS AND SUBDIVISIONS: 1) Brown and Burgess, Lot Split and Consolidation Plat. The proposal is to re-align interior property lines of Permanent Parcel Nos. 236-2-006, 236-23- 019, and 233-23-0331 Location is between original Colu.mbia Road (south of Butternut Ridge Road), relocated Columbia Road (SR252), and Butternut Ridge Road. Zoning is "A"-Residence, Single Family, entirely: All proposed parcels conform to the area requirements of the Zoning Code; proposed parcels 2 and 3 do not, nor do they currently, conform to the frontage requirement ( no change from existing). Mr. Brown advised recently he became aware the Burgess property is located 8 feet from his back porch. He explained the intent of this proposal is to increase the area of parcel one so that there is a greater distance between the property line and his home. Mrs. O'Rourke questioned wbich parcels Mr. Brown currently owns. W. Brown advised he owns parcels one and two on the plat and is in the process of purchasing part of parcel three. It was noted there are homes on parcels one and two. Mrs. O'Rourke did not believe parcel two has any frontage.. Although it was. difficult to tell on the plat, Mr. Brown advised parcel two fronts on new Columbia and parcel one fronts on old Columbia. Mr. Brown lives in the house on parcel one and rents the home on parcel two. He clarified parcels two and three both have the driveways fronting on new Columbia. Mrs. O'Rourke noted parcel three does not appear to have any frontage. Mr. Brown clarified it fronts on butternut and new Columbia. Mrs. O'Rourke questioned if the address is on Buttemut or Columbia. Mr. Brown clarified Mr. Burgess owns that lot. Mrs. O'Rourke verified for the record that the Burgess property fronts on butternut. W. Brennan questioned if the intent is to buy the entire Burgess property. Mr. Brown advised he only intends to purchase a portion of the Burgess property. Mr. Brown hoped to purchase the rear portion of parcel three, split offthe rear of parcel two and combine these rear portions to parcel one. It was noted the owners of parcel three were not present and Mr. Mauuing wondered if their presence was necessary. City Engineer 2