My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04/12/1988 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
1988
>
1988 Planning Commission
>
04/12/1988 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:31:07 PM
Creation date
1/29/2019 3:51:57 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
1988
Board Name
Planning Commission
Document Name
Minutes
Date
4/12/1988
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
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 COMMISSION APRIL 12, 1988 PAGE 6 <br />Conway is concerned that with this wording, he could not permit a sidewalk <br />from the right-of-way to the buiding without a variance, and suggested delet- <br />ing :`entirely" before- s*_reen area. , Assistant Law Director Dubelko is concerned <br />about that from a legal noint of view. Mr. Morgan believes that s uch a walk <br />would be permitted since it would be an access and an access is nermitted <br />under to ordinance. Mr. Tallon nointed out that since the parlcing would be <br />to the rear of the building most sidewalks would be parallel to the front of <br />the building. Mr. Thomas Dointed out that the Commission could decide on the <br />sidewalks. Mr. Conway is concercied that he mip,ht not be able to annrove a <br />parallel sidewalkwithin the 35 foot set back. Mr. Tallon believes that this <br />might be overlv construed, and this would be part of the permitted access. <br />Mr. Dubelko stated that the ordinance is designed for a"bowling allev" type <br />lot, and if a develoner presented a 50 foot set back and was advised of this <br />provision, it nrobably would not be difficult for him to vlace the building <br />back 39 or 40 feet to a11ow for a sidewalk. After some discussion it was <br />decided to annrove the ordinance as nresented. M. Betts moved to recommend <br />approval of Ord. 88-36 as drafted and making that recommendation to the BZD, <br />seconded by J. Thomas, and unanimousl_y approved. <br />Ord. 88- 37: An Ordinance creating New Section 1161.091, Amending Section <br />1161.09(A), and Creating New Paragrauh (F) of Section 1161.12 of the Zoning <br />Code, All of Which Concern Granting to the Planning Commission Authorify <br />to Vary the Zoning Code R.equirements for Parking, Access Drives, and Loading <br />Facilities, Under Centain Specif.ied Conditions, as Amended. <br />Mr. Betts beleives the word "landbankina" should be defined in the Zoning <br />Code. Mr. Morgan is concerned that, if the Commission asks a develoDer to <br />landbank some parking, and after the b uilding is comnleted the developer <br />needs it; that he could put it back in without coming back to the Commission. <br />Councilman Tallon stated-that usuallv the develoner will ask if he can reduce <br />his parking based on his experience, the PlanniiiQ Commission would not just <br />req_uire fewer snaces. Assistant Law Director Dubelko stated that a building <br />permit would.be required to increase the parking and at that time the developer <br />would be directed to the Planning Commission. Mr. Conwav is concerned about <br />the words "change of use", since another retail use could require more narking, <br />and this could be construed that the vroposal would not have to come before <br />the Commission. It was decided that this could be clarified by chauging the <br />wording to "change of use or tenancy, or exnansion". Regarding Section 1161.09 <br />Paragraph (a) Mr. Conway stated that a single, three lane drive might, at times, <br />be necessary, and is also questioning why driveways cannot be Dlaced more than <br />120 feet ap art at the center liiie. Mr. Boyer agreed that that restriction is <br />not iiecessary. It was decided to delete this limitation. IMr. Morgan questioned <br />why a small business would be required to have a two lane drive, pointiug out <br />some small businesses with 4 or 5 snaces where there is only a single drive. <br />T'Ir. Boyer stated that two lanes should be reauired for safetv vehicles. After <br />some discussion it was decided that a two lane drive should be required, and <br />a single three lane drive could be allowed. Councilman Tallon agreed to <br />eliminate the 120 foot maximum between curb cuts for the present, stating that <br />it might have to be nut back iii after the BZD Committee looked into it further. <br />Commission discussed the new paragranh (f); allowing the Commission to land- <br />bank loading zones in order to have more green area iu a develonment where <br />these loading zones are not necessary. Again it was decided to include the <br />word "tenancy" after "change o.f use", R. $ierman moved to approve the nroposed <br />Ordinance 88-37 with the followin.g recommendations: Under 1161.081 1) include <br />the word "P.arking" after adequate: 2) add;the words "tenancy.or" after the
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.