02/23/1988 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 23, 1988 PAGE 3 legal opinion, and that the I3uilding Commissioner must determi.ne if there is a violation of Section 1169.01(a) and if Section 1161.12(b) is being violated, this must be addressed by the developer. Regarding the ownership of the property, if there is no dispute over this owner- ship, the plan cannot be denied on that basis. Building Commissioner Conway advised.that, regarding the question of the proximity to inter- secting streets, he has not seen this plan prior to tonight and he must stud_y this, but he agrees.that the code does state loading zones must be 50 feet away from a residential district. In rebuttal to various issues mentioned the developers stated: the 60 foot separation of streets and drives does not apply to streets across Lorain R.oad; the Commission had suggested a loading zone at the west side of the building; originally the neighbors had requested that the fire access drive be chained off; they do have a signed contract for the Ground Round pro- perty and an agreement has been reached with Ashlind Oil Company for their property and that agreement is being drawn up now; their state- ments regarding traffic counts were broken down by westbound and eastbound traffic and are close to what Mr. Pattison stated; and main- tenance contract will have specific language to ascertain that trash, etc, is removed in a timely manner. In reference to the figures on traffic generation, Mre Kirby stated there was a great diversity of opinion on how traffic generation is calculated and offered to give the Commission a copy of the figures he used; and in reference to the loading zones, it was their interpretation of the codes that loading zones should be placed 50 feet from residentially used property, not from the zone line. Mr. Thomas still has concerns about the fire access drive, pointing out that this drive could not be used for any vehicles other than governmental, they could not use the road even for vehicles to maintain the property. Mr. Dubelko aoreed this was true, but from a common sense aspect he would not think the Cit_y would cite them for such a use. Chairman Morgan agrees that the developer has . made some good changes, it is possible that the property is being over built, and he would like to continue the proposal until all-these issues are addressed by the Building Commissioner and the developer. The developers maintained that they have dowiisized the building three times and located_the loading zones at the west at the reauest of the Commission. Mr. Sullivan, a neighbor and an analyst for Roadway Express, explained various turn around requirements for loading zones for tractor trailers and advised that there is a tendancy for larger shipments which must be delivered by'-"these vehicles, rather than using tlie smaller trucks, and suggested that the City check with the L.T.t_ Transportation Industry Association to determine if these turnxng radii are adequate. Chairman Morgari announced that this proposal will - be continued in order for the developer and the Building Department to resolve these questions. 2) The Olive Garden Italian Restaurant, 25984 Lorain Road Proposal to construct restaurant. Heard by the Architectural Board of Review February 17, 1988 J. Richards, representing General Mills Restaurants, explained that he had presented a revised plan to the Architectural Board of Review_which reflected the recommendatio.ns of the Planning Commission to. eliminate one drive and the parking in front of the building; the building had been moved forward iu order to increase parking and on that plan parking