11/22/1988 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-?T PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 22, 1988 PAGE 2 IV. NEY•T DEVELOPMENTS AND SUBDIVISIONS: No items V. COMMUNICATIONS: Ord. 88-122: An ordinance providing for the amendment of the Zone Map of the City of North Olmsted, which Zone Map is part of the Zoning Code of the City of North Olmsted, by changing the premises hereinafter described from Single Residence A District to General Retail Business District, as amended. Assistant Law Director Dubelko clarified that this was the DiBenedetto property on Brookpark Road Extension which the Planning Commi:ssion had approved previously. Mr. Gorris stated that his main concern had been that no sliver of land would be remaining with a split zoning, that the corner lot be zoned entirely Residential, and that the lot facing Brookpark Road Extension be entirely General Retail: Mr. Dubelko advised that the legal description was presented by the Assistant City Engineer. B. Gorris moved to recomr.iend approval of the adoption.of Ordinance 88-122, seconded by R. Bierman., and unanimously approved. VI. COMMITTEE REPORTS: Mr. Gorris advised that the Planning Review Committee was adjourned for Christmas. VII. GTE Mobilnet (disapproved by Planning Commission October 25, 1988). Mr. Morgan explained that this proposal to install antennas on the roof of the Westbury and to use one unit in the building for equipment had been heard on October 25th and denied because it did not get the required 4 votes for approval, but since only 4 members were present at the meeting it was decided that it could be heard again. Mr. Morgan moved to reconsider the proposal. Mr. Bierman questioned Assi:stant Law Director Dubelko if the Chairman, who was not on the prevailingside, could make a motion to recon- sider. Mr. Dubelko responded that he could, if all members agree and if there a.re no objections, but if someone objects to the 'concept of reconsidering it now that there is a full body present, that individual could object and cause the developer to resubmit. Mr. Morgan again moved to reconsider the proposal, seconded by M. Betts. Roll call on motion: Morgan, Betts, Bowen, Gorris, Thomas, and Traczyk, yes. Mr. Bierman, no. Mr. Morgan questioned if the proposal could now be.considered. Mr..Dubelko stated that since there were no objections made to the procedure of reconsidering, the motion to reconsider passed since there was only one negative vote. Mr. Rafferty, the developer, made the same presentation as originally given on October 25th, explaining that two antennas for cellular phone service would be attached to the roof of the apartment building, one apartment would be used as an unmanned facility for equipment and explained_that their letter of October.14th outlined fire protection, noise levels etc. It was explained by another representative that the exact decible rating of the HVAC unit has been determined at 45 decibles by the manufacturer of the unit, not 85 as originally stated, closest wall to the unit is 6 to 8 feet away with a concrete brick wall separation, stating that there would be no more noise than with a normal residential use. They further advised that they would respond to any complaint from neightiors or the management. Mr. Morgan reviewed the concerns of the Commission at the