Laserfiche WebLink
? W. Tallon questioned if anyone in the audience had questions or comments on <br />.-s-? this proposal. Nobody came forward. <br />R. Tallon motioned to move Lorain Point Building of 24693 Lorain Rd. to the <br />Board of Zoning Appeals with a favorable recommendation to grant all <br />requested variances with condition upon removing the north eastern most drive <br />and landscaping the two spaces associated with that drive. K. O'Rourke <br />seconded the motion and was unanimously approved. Motion Carried <br />4/24/O1. ' <br />R. Tallon motioned to move the proposal for Lorain Point Building of 24693 <br />Lorain Rd, to Architectural Review Board with. the recommendation that <br />applicant remove the north eastern most drive along with the two parking <br />spaces associated with that drive and it all be landscaped and green area for <br />Lorain Rd. and that the applicant bring plans that include the changes made by <br />the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission would like to see this <br />proposal return after it has been through the Board of Zoning Appeals and <br />Architectural Review Board. The motion was seconded by W. Spalding and <br />unanimously approved. 1VIotion Carried 4/24/01. 2. Fieldstone Development, 5/]L 11 Industrial Pkvw. <br />The proposal consists of a multi-phase, multi-tenant office warehouse facility <br />to match the current facility on the adjoining lot. Note: Planning Commission <br />referred this proposal to the Board of Zoning Appeals with a favorable <br />recommendation. Board of Zoning Appeals granted the variances requested <br />on 4/5/Ol . <br />Chairman Tallon called all interested parties forward to review the proposal. <br />Tony Cerny, the architect, and Jeff Hammerschmidt, the owner, came forward <br />to review the proposal. Mr. Cerny indicated that they went to Board of <br />Zoning. Appeals and everything was approved with the exception' of two <br />requested variances that dealt with the drive entrance drive which they have <br />modified to come into compliance. Since that time they have submitte.d light <br />fixture cut sheets and lighting calculations. Mr. Conway questioned if they <br />intended to stripe the extra parking along. the back of the buildirig. Mr. <br />Hammerschmidt replied probably not seeing that they are not necessary for <br />approval of the . project. Mr. Conway replied that it would eliminate the <br />confusion. Mr. Conway questioned if they had a submittal of the paperwork <br />for the cross easement agreements. N1r. Cerny replied that there was confusion <br />with the Law Department about that. Mr. Dubelko indicated that he thought it <br />would be appropriate to have a cross easement agreement between the two <br />properties. Mr. Tallon questioned if they planned on keeping the two <br />properties separate. Mr. Cerny indicated that was correct. Mr. Tallon <br />questioned what the properties would share. Mr. Cerny indicated that they <br />would be sharing a truck dock and a simple drive because they cross property <br />lines. N1r. Dubelko questioned what the reason was for not joining the two <br />different parcels. Mr. Cerny indicated that there were issues between the <br />different fmancial institutions that control the different parts of the project. <br />They didn't want it under one parcel, because it muddied up the waters for <br />lending on the different parts of the building. Mr. Tallon questioned if they <br />3