|
PLANNING COMMISSION
<br />`.
<br />„
<br />. ?-
<br />MARCH 22, 1988 PAGE 2.. ? S.
<br />;
<br />can be developed on that parcel and does conform to the ordinances of ;-.
<br />the city. He advised the residents who were present,• that the proposal
<br />conforms, and if they do not approve of the ordinances, they should re- .
<br />quest that the Council change those ordinances. In resporise to the
<br />Commission's questions, Mr. Seaman explained that by using the parking
<br />plan that Mr. Fattison suggested at the Architectural Board meeting,
<br />,.
<br />they have been able to eliminate the retaining wall and will have a
<br />landscape buffer with ground cover between their property and the Ground
<br />Round property; and also there would be either an outside:tiaultoor a
<br />meter room for the water meters (it had previously.been estab lished that
<br />electrical meters would be on the rear wall of the building,..concealed
<br />by the fence). Mr. Wendell, the city forester, was present and had
<br />submitted a report which advised that there were two large trees, one '
<br />is a 60 to 80 year old Chinese elm, located where the west drive is
<br />p.lanned. He would like the west drive relocated to the east so it.lines
<br />up with the center drive in order to save those trees. He s.tated that
<br />the drive would have to be moved at least 25 feet east of the trees.
<br />Members discussed various ossibilities ointin out that some arkiri
<br />P ? P g P g'
<br />might also have to be removed and variances for eliminating one drive
<br />. and fewer parking spaces woul:d have to be requested: Mr. Kirber, -
<br />engineer,.and.Tr[
<br />r. Koury, one of the-developers ; beTieve . that . one driveway
<br />-
<br />would cause traf.fic problems, especially with trucks using the same
<br />drive as cars. Mr. Valore, attorney.suggested off-setting.the drive
<br />in order to save the larger.of the'two trees. Mr. Kirber drew..a sketch
<br />of one driveway on the nlan and suggested that possibly it could be a
<br />4 lane:3•':>drive with an island in the middle, but the_y are still concerned I
<br />about safety problems: Mr. Zavac pointed out, that if_ they have. to go
<br />? back for variances, this would delay,them even longer. The Commission,.
<br />' ; ' ? ' •?'k ' ' r r;would, like' to save"?m`the'?treesifpossible; "and. will' refer? "theproposal;'??'?' ?
<br />. ? , . ,?.
<br />to the BZD Committee with that.recommendation, but they will not ask
<br />the develovers to come back to this Board. :Mr. Dillon, sPeaking for l. -
<br />theadjacent homeowners, advised that in reference to Mr. Pattison's. , -
<br />statements, he wants to go on record. that the homeowners involved fully
<br />suuport Mr. Pattison and appreciated what he has done for them. R. Mange, .
<br />.. • an adjacent neighbor, was advised that screening the air conditionars?ion
<br />,the'rear.will be recommended. Mr. Mange:.still maintains -that the devel-..;.
<br />'oper is trying to put too.much.one this property. Mr. Morgan advised. ' the neighbors present that-the proposal does meet code, and that the
<br />`, ., Commission. is merely -requesting that the developers attempt to 'save; the .
<br />.?•::, ,. .
<br />, trees, if they do revise the plan, variance would be required. _ B. Gorris -
<br />moved to approve the Lauren Hill Plaza_ proposal to construct';a shopping:
<br />center at 24106 Lorain Road, incorporating all the recommendations of
<br />the Architectural Review Board and request that the BZD Committee of
<br />??. , .`. - . ?Council try to work with the developer in order. to save two trees.on
<br />Lorain Road .which are presently. located within the xaestern driveway ?of ,
<br />this proposed sub divisinn, we would like to foxward a cnpy of Mr. Wendell's ,
<br />letter ofMarch 22nd along with this and would like to make the point to..
<br />the BZD; while we realize that. everything that, is presented currently i meets code, it would be this Board's recommendation that any necessary '. . variance .in parking and/or :::the , incorporation •of • a sing],e driveway. be
<br />granted the.developer provided that there are no safety ramifications on
<br />the ingress or the egress to the property; and-with the'.notation tha.t -
<br />there wil:l?be a landscape liuffer, instead.of the retaining wall:originallq planned between fhe GroimdRound property and this development; seconded
<br />s;? by.T. Morgan. Roll call on motion: Gorris, Morgan, Thomas, and Tra.czyk,
<br />; . .
<br />?3 . .
<br />,,, . . .
<br />;# . , .
|