My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02/09/1988 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
1988
>
1988 Planning Commission
>
02/09/1988 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:31:05 PM
Creation date
1/29/2019 3:50:21 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
1988
Board Name
Planning Commission
Document Name
Minutes
Date
2/9/1988
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />PLANNING COMMTSSION • FEBRUARY 9, 1988 PAGE 4 <br />building and if turning radius is adequate for the loading zones provided. <br />behind the southeast segment of the building. Developers responded that <br />50,000 square feet are necessary to make building financially feasible, <br />that they might be able to re- configure the building, but that could <br />necessitate,a parking variarice, and .that moving the building fozward in <br />order to put loading zones in the rear would create an undesirable sit- <br />uation for the adjacent neighbors. Mr: Pattison, a resident, addressed <br />the Commisson and stated: the purpose of the ordinances should be to <br />protect the quality of life in community; most developers try to saturate <br />the property; according to estimates there would be 5 trips per 1,000 <br />square foot of building per hour, thus this development should average <br />about 250 trips per hours; peak"-.times could average 500-trips per hour; <br />development barely meets miriimum standards; residentially zoned property <br />should not be used as a buffer, buffer should start at the zone line; <br />according to Section 1174.09 of the Zoning Codes,.driveways should be <br />located in their entirety within the area zoned for Retail Business, rear . <br />drive is an access drive and has to be on properly zoned land; project <br />does have nice architectural character; a tractor-trailer could not back <br />into loading zones; locking off rear access so there is no police access <br />would cause problems; dumpster should be.located further away from resi- <br />dences; objects to the logic th at this center will be taking away business <br />from otlier center since this could increase vacancy in older centers <br />-which in turn could become eyesores; and advised the Commission that it <br />should study adjacent driveways and road since the number.of driveway <br />increase traffic congestion. Mr. Dillon; an adjacent neighbor,.read.a letter from the residents of Amber Oaks.Development which abuts the pro- <br />posal. They are objecting to the proposal on the basis of:.using the <br />50 foot buffer. between commercial and residential as a fire access drive, <br />constructed on residential property with a minimum of 10 to 15 feet be= <br />tween it and residential property which will result in depreciating their <br />property values (one of the highest in North Olmsted); lack of privacy; <br />increase of vandalism and break-ins; distractions from noise, lights, <br />questionable behavior.at rear of property; increase of rodents and pests; <br />homeowners -iaill have -to police the rear 'area; and pointiiig out that this <br />area of.Lorain Road has been cited as one of.the most. congested sections• <br />of that street; this is over development and over building of a limited <br />area behind existing commercial enterprises; could increase existing flood- <br />ing problems and-concluded that any commercial development in this area <br />should be approached with caution.. Mr. Pulito, a resident, would like a _ <br />legal opinion from the Law Department if the fire access road on resi- <br />dential property:violates the code. Mr. Menge, a resident; also cited ' <br />their present traffic problems and stated that they have.been told by <br />realtors that their property values could dron as much as.twenty percent <br />if this development is.constructed. The developers disputed the amount of <br />traffic that was `estitnated would_be gener.ated:by this proposa•l, stating ;- <br />.that -:the largest_.tni tt;Vould be.;app'roximately 6;000 to. 10,000 square :feet' <br />and wouid not accommodate a restaurant or a major tenantThey maintain <br />that the Great Northern Complex with over a million square feet is the <br />traffic generator, their:50,000 square foot:center will capture traffic, <br />not generate it. In.response to a question by Mr. Pulito, Mr. Dubelko <br />advised that the rear buffer -area has previously been established as <br />being 50 feet from the building to the property line, not from the zoning <br />line. The Commission would like to continue the proposal and request a <br />legal opinion from the I,aw Department if the fire access is permitted on <br />residentially zoned pro.perty (Section 1139.08). The Commission requested
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.