My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09/26/1989 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
1989
>
1989 Planning Commission
>
09/26/1989 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:31:28 PM
Creation date
1/29/2019 4:31:46 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
1989
Board Name
Planning Commission
Document Name
Minutes
Date
9/26/1989
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 />•, . . ? <br />PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 26, 1989 PAGE 5 <br />though the members agree with the neighbors, they must work within the <br />law, but they can exercise some control over the property. Councilman <br />Wilamosky read Section 1113.02 of the Zoning Code which reads as <br />follows: "The purpose of the Zoning Code shall be to provide by the pro- <br />visions hereinafter made for the orderly development of the land within <br />the City and to provide in that manner for the public peace, health, <br />safety, convenience, comfort, prosperity and general welfare of its <br />residents and of the City". He requested that the Commission consider <br />the safety, peace, health, and welfare of the residents. Mr. Thomas <br />stated that he again moved to table the Nemeth Commerical Building pro- <br />posal until we are provided more information concerning the number of <br />additional seats that are in the Star Lounge and precisely how many addi- <br />tional parking spaces they need, we would also like additional information <br />concerning whether or not the license of the Star Lounge has been renewed <br />or if it was a conditional renewal, and for how long, and to request infor- <br />ma.tion on obtaining a consultant on sound barriers, and at this point <br />updated plans will not be necessary, seconded by M. Betts. Councilman <br />Bohlman then questioned if the Purpose Section read by Mr. Wilmosky <br />would be strong enough to allow the Commission to deny this proposal.. <br />Mr. Dubelko stated that it would not, that this section mainly states that <br />there is a balance, that there is a right for a developer to orderly de- <br />velopment of his property versus the need for the residents to be protected <br />in the interest of safety. The Commission must address the safety within <br />the parameters of the zoning code. Other issues must be addressed by <br />other bodies in the city. Roll call on motion: Thomas, Betts, and Morgan, <br />yes. Mr. Bierman and Mr. Knight, no. Mr. Thoma.s advised that it takes <br />four affirmative votes to approve a motion. R. Bierman moved to approve <br />the plans presented to construct an addition to a parking area at 29310 <br />to 20352 Lorain Road, seconded by G. Knight. Roll call on motion: Bierman, <br />Knight, and Betts, no. Mr. Morgan, yes. Mr. Thomas, abstained.. Mr. Dubleko <br />advised that.an abstention is usually counted as a vote in favor of the <br />majority which would make this a 4 to 1 vote. Mr. Thomas stated that was <br />_ not his intention so he would change-his vote to "yes". Motion failed to <br />pass. Mr. Dubelko advised that since a motion to pass has been defeated <br />and a motion to table has been defeated, some action will have to be taken, <br />some agreement must be reached. The Commission took a short recess. Mr. <br />Betts moved that the Commission reconsider the recent motions and votes <br />on those motions in regard to the Nemeth proposal and specifically recom- <br />mend that we reconsider the original motion on the floor that in concept <br />was a motion to table under certai.n stipulations as originally presented <br />by Mr. Thoma.s. Mr. Dubelko commented that since the Commission's By-Laws <br />indicate that the procedure and votes, must be done in accordance with <br />Robert's Rules of Order, he believes that if a member voted in the majority <br />he would have the right to move to reconsider-and this must be done at this <br />meeting or the next, but it would be more appropriate to reconsider the <br />last vote. M. Betts moved to reconsider the last motion submitted by. <br />Mr. Bierman to approve the Nemeth proposal. No vote was taken since, <br />after some discussion, it was decided that there would not be four affirma- <br />tive votes to reconsider the.last motion. AZr. Thomas advised Pir. and Mrs. <br />Nemeth that the development as submitted was not approved, but that they <br />did have the right to re-submit and they do know what the Commission is <br />looking for, that they do have a right to expand their parking lot, but <br />the xesidents have a right to sleep. Mrs. Nemeth stated that it was the <br />responsibility of the bar owner to control the noise coming from his <br />customers, not theirs, but they would loc;k into the lease to see what they
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.