My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03/28/1989 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
1989
>
1989 Planning Commission
>
03/28/1989 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:31:26 PM
Creation date
1/29/2019 4:28:55 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
1989
Board Name
Planning Commission
Document Name
Minutes
Date
3/28/1989
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
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
PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 28, 1989 PAGE 2 <br />Mr. Ricci, Mr. Olear, Mr. Nicholson, and others from Toys "R" Us presented ? <br />revised plans and introduced Mr. Lepisto, traffic consultant from Traff-Pro. <br />Mr. Nicholson explained that the revised survey has located all the trees <br />on the property, shows all adjacent streets and drives as requested by the <br />Commission, and reflects the recommendations of the Architectural Board <br />of Review regarding the landscaping. He further explained that this plan <br />has 287 parking spaces including fifty six smaller spaces designated for <br />compact cars. Mr. Lepisto gave an overview of the traffic study and <br />presented an accident analysis which had been omitted from the copies <br />presented previously. The survey was taken on Tuesday, March 14th, and <br />he explained that they purposely looked at an off day rather than a more <br />heavily travelled day to determine a minimum use, and used the standards <br />set by the Institute of Transportation Engineers to estimate the number <br />of trips generated by such a facility. He explained that there were 11 <br />basic warrants required by the State of Ohio for the installation of a <br />traffic signal and stated that based on the data collected for the report <br />a traff ic signal was recommended at the Lorain entrance to.the Toys "R" Us <br />store. Since there have been complaints about the Whitethorn and Lorain <br />intersection, that too was studied, and it was concluded that since the <br />. proposed driveway is off set about 50 feet from Whitethorn there could be <br />conflicts with the two drives. He advised that there were three options: <br />the re-alignment of Whitethorn so it would be opposite the Toys "R" Us <br />drive especially since there is a problem with the angle at which Whitethorn <br />comes into Lorain Road; the proposed drive for Toys "R" Us could be re- <br />located so that it is opposite Whitethorn; or, finally, a three phase <br />traffic system which would aceommodate all three streets, but since the ? <br />main concern should be to move traffic on Lorain Road, this would not be <br />the optimal solution. He advised that ther.e had only been one accident <br />at the Whitethron exit in the past two years. The residents who were <br />present advised that there had been another accident in the past few days. <br />Mr. Nicholson stated that they had no objection to installing a traffic <br />light, but that they would prefer .to relocate the Whitethorn Boulevard <br />intersection rather than relocating their proposed driveway. P4r. Ricci <br />explained that relocating their drive would hinder their traffic flow .on <br />the lot (especially for truck traffic) and would make it necessary to <br />remove additional parking spaces.. They also belie.ve that relocating the <br />Whitethorn.intersection would benefit the people using that street, and <br />believes that this could be done within the existing right of way, and <br />without acquiring any additional land. Mr. Lepisto estimated that the <br />road is 24 feet wide and the right of way is probably about 50 feet. He <br />further stated that this would be a traffic activated signal for Toys "R" Us <br />and for Lahitethorn. Mr. Thomas suggested that this issue should be studied <br />further and that more definite plans must be submitted for this relocation. <br />In reference to the parking plan, it was stated at ttfe last meeting that <br />no variances would be needed for the smaller spaces since they are pro- <br />viding more spaces than required and could provide the minimum number of <br />conforming size parking spaces. Building Conmissioner Conway advised that, <br />after some study, it was decided that since the code does define the size <br />of the parking spaces, a variance will be required. Mr. Gorris pointed <br />out that they could easily turn the 56 smaller spaces into 28 conforming <br />spaces and still have more than the required spaces. Building Commissioner <br />Conway verified that they are required to have 252 parking spaces and are <br />providing 287 spaces including the smaller ones. Mr. Ricci stated that <br />the compromise was that if they put in the additional landscape areas to <br />save tr.ees, they could have the smaller spaces. He pointed out that now
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.