10/13/1987 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

PLANNING CONMISSION OCTOBER 13, 1987 PAGE 2 screened with a brick wall; and ground mounted sign is planned in the front. Mr. Thomas questioned the parking shown in the front of the . building which is not permitted in the Limited Industrial area. Mr. Davidson explained that the parking was behind the 50 foot set b ack line, and had been discussed with the Building Commissioner, He further explained that the pronerty slopes down to the rear making it difficult to put parking in the back,'and also the property abuts residential pronerty and since they are planning to plant the rear area (possibly with crown vetch) this plan would be more desirab.le. Assistant Law Director Dubelko stated that he believed that it had previously been determined that the front set b ack was to the actual front building line, not at the required 50 foot line, however he would like to discuss this with the Building Commissioner. The Commission studied sections. of the code and decided to discuss the Building Commissioner's inter- pretation at the next meeting. It was pointed out that the lot does not have the required 200 foot frontage, but is considered a legall,y non-conforming lot and a side yard variance and total side yard variance . had been granted'. Building Commissioner's memo had stated that 17 spaces were required. No handicapped parking spaces are shown, and Mr. Dubelko advised that no handicapped snaces are required in the Limited Industrial district.- Commission questioned the loading area which is in the front, however they do not anticipate any delivery vehicle larger than a United Parcel truck. Mr. Helzer, who ownes property near by, questioned the plans for the storm water retention since lot is small, and there are no ditches or storm sewers. Mr. Davidson stated that he had a retention plan which is to be reviewed bv the Engineering Department. Engineer Boyle stated that retention was required and that an existing '.tfire -hydrant would probably have to be moved because of its proximity to the driveway. Mr. Jent, who ownes property to the east, is concerned that since a variance had been granted to construct the building 10 feet closer- to his lot line that it would create restrictions as to how.Yie could develop his property: pointing out that he is planning to develop it as industrial. Chairman Burns stated that this property owner req.uested the variance and Mr. Jent should be able.to develop his lot as the property is zoned. R. Bierman moved to submit the plans to construct a building.at 31400 Bradley Road to the Architectural Board of Review, the forester, the Safety Denartment, and also recommend that Mr. Dulielko and the Building Commissioner determine the parking in.the front of the building in regard to the code, seconded by B. Gorris; and unanimousl_y approved. IV. NEW DEVELOPMENTS AND SUBDIVISIONS: 1) Hastings Drive Utility Easement (for Quinn & Dunlap). The proposal is to grant a thirty (30) foot utilit_y easement to the City of North Olmsted on permanent parcel numbers 234-22-.15, 234-22-16, 234-22-24, and 234-22-25 for the purpose of constructing storm and sanitary sewers to service these parcels. Mr. Dunlap advised that he and Mr. Quinn would be constructing.s:to.rm and sanitary sewers for four lots and will be granting easments to the city for inaintenance of the sewers. A previous proposal had for sewers to service three lots, but they have now worked out an agreement with the