06/13/1989 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

? PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 13, 1989 PAGE 6 to the landbanked parking area or somewhere in the back away from the adjacent neighbor and also to provide to the Commission the overview of the adjacent drives to this proposal, seconded by R. Bowen, and unani- mously approved. Chairman Thomas advised that item number 6, Dr. Andrew Forde, would be heard next. 6) Dr. Andrew Forde, 30915 Lorain Road Pzoposal to construct professional office building (existing dwelling will be demolished). rir. Porter, architect, presented colored rendering and photographs of the property and explained that they intended to save as r.ia.ny trees as possible. The 3,000 square foot split face block building will house Dr. Forde's dental practice on the upper level and the lower level will be leased. Mr. Porter explained that the property was on a hill and the lower level could be entered directly from the lower level parking area. This is a large irregularly shaped parcel and there will probably be a future development of five more similar buildings. Mr. Bierman stated that with this type of building, they should use brick and not a less expensive split face block. Mr. Porter explained that one of the reasons Dr. Forde hired him was that Dr. Forde and his wife liked Mr. Porter's building so well and it was this same block. He further explained that he uses a 4 inch block with matching mort-ar and stated that when a building is built the way this one will be, the block will be no less expensive than brick, r1r. Betts agreed that Mr. Porter's building is extremely attractive. Mr. Conway pointed out that this is an odd shaped lot and the site plan shows a 5 foot buffer along one property line which Mr. Porter has construed to be a side line, but in his opinion this would be a rear line and would require a 50 foot buffer. This is not the portion of the property that is being developed now, and Mra Porter stated that he would prefer a 25 foot wooded buffer area with no parking instead of a 50 foot buffer which could be used for parking. This would be discussed with the future development. In refer- ence to the future plans, Mr. Thomas pointed out that they might not be allowed a second curb cut, perhaps they should center the access drive that they show here. Mr. Porter stated that they would have no objection to orie curb Cut if they could widen the proposed drive which is actually at the center of the mass of the property. The Commission would like to see a plan of the proposed future development and Mr. Thomas pointed out that this would not necessarily have to be part of the record and they would not be committed to it. Mr. McCloud, a neighbor on North Court, stated that he liked the proposal but had many concerns: that a bar or some other retail use might go into the building and he would like a deed restriction to eliminate this possibility; he would like some additional evergreen trees planted since the trees on the property are desiduous and if trees are planted now they would grow considerable before the other phases are built; that there could be drainage problems especially since the west end of the city is developing so rapidly and there are so many water problems in the city;.and he would also like some kind of evergreen material planted around the trash area instead of burning bush which also looses its leaves. He concluded by saying that he believes that because of the sewer problems that all building should be stopped in North Olmsted. Mr. Porter stated that there were some mature trees on the property which they might relocate in the area that Mr. McCloud indicated, but after some discussion he agreed to put in about 6 evergreen trees. He further explained