10/25/1988 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

N ? . "At. PLANNING COMMISSION,'•,_ OCTOBER 25, 1988 PAGE 2 concerns about allowing a retail use in a building that was desioned totally for a residential use, even though this particular use is not incompatible, since the Commission might be asked to approve other retail uses in similar circumstances. Mr. Thomas stated that there would probably not be a problem if this use were not considered to be General Retail under the code, and believed that this is an intelligent use of the building. He pointed out that the owners would not approve such a plan if it were detrimental to their tenants. Mr. Bierman questioned where allowing such uses could be stopped. Mr. Dubelko advised that if the Commission exercised their discretion wisely, and determined a General Retail use would not have a detrimental effect on the residents, a line could be drawn between this and another retail use. He stated that the Mixed Use District provisions could be amended specifically in the code to allow such a use. Mr. Rafferty again pointed out that they are considered a public utility, not a retail use, stating that this service is needed for the residents of North Olmsted. He explained that under the P.U.C.O. they are exemnt from all zoning restrictions in townships. Mr. Conway requested that the Building Department be allowed to inspect these area during their annual inspection of the common areas of apartment buildings, and also suggested that the Fire Department should make a yearly inspection. Mr. Thomas would like the Law Department to look into someway of collecting income tax from this facility since they will be making a profit, but. it is unmanned except for weekly servicing by an employee. Mr. Aforgan would like the Law Department to draft an amendment for the Mixed Use District to make this type of anplica- tion a a permitted use. T. Morgan moved that the Planning Commission approve the GTE Mobilnet proposal to change one suite of an apartment into a business use, that use being to house telephone equipment for mobile phone usage, with the recommendations that annual inspections are carried on by the Fire Depart- ment of the suite involved, that the Building Department establish the decible ratings at the walls adjacent to tenants, and also establish a vibration cri- teria that must be met for the equipment on the floor, and with,the further, - res.triction that access to the.unit not be allowed at night, seconded by J. Thomas. Roll call on motion: Morgan, Thomas, and Betts, yes. Mr. Bierman, no. Motion failed to pass. Mr. Rafferty was advised that four votes were needed for approval. Mr. Rafferty requested to withdraw this proposal at this time. He was advised that he could not withdraw after the proposal had been voted down. Mr. Rafferty ojected because he had not been advised that there was not a full board. Mr. Dubelko advised that there was a quorum present, it would take four votes to approve a proposal, and that it is assumed that before a developer comes before a city body, he knows its ordinances and law. Mr. Dubelko explained that the proposal cannot go on to the BZD Committee since it was not approved. Mr. Morgan again requested that the Law Department draft a proper amendment to the Mixed Use District to include this as a permitted use and also suggested that the Finance Director take a.look at the income tax issue. After some discussion, Mr. Dubelko stated that he believed that a motion for reconsideration could be made at the next meeting and will check into that procedure. If it.is determined that the proposal can be reconsidered the Building Commission will no.tify the developers. 2) Nightfall Night Club, 30850 Lorain Rd. No representative was present. The proposal was called and discussed later in this meeting.