Laserfiche WebLink
<br />mile was a starting point and was taken from the Westlake ordinance. Mr. Skoulis <br />believed that the distance should be 1/2 mile. Finance Director James Burns had <br />submitted copies of a letter he sent to the Law Department stating several <br />problems he saw with the ordiriance. Chairman Gorris believed that the Law <br />Department should review his comments. Since there was little vacant land <br />available within the 1/2 mile radius, Mr. Tallon was concerned that this <br />restriction might be considered an actual ban on superstores and might not stand <br />up in court. The members and Mr. Conway discussed the ordinance individually. Mr. <br />Conway pointed out the dimensions were taken from the center line of the freeway <br />intersecting with the city street, and believed that it should be stated <br />specifically in the ordinance the point from which this distance should be <br />measured. He also questioned if the entire lot had to be within the 1/2 mile <br />distance or could just a portion of the lot fall within that area. Mr. Gorris <br />believed that if the whole lot had to be within the 1/2 mile, the ordinance would <br />be too restrictive and the distance should be changed; the idea of this <br />limitation is to keep from taxing the existing infrastructure. Mr. Skoulis <br />questioned what would happen if only a foot or so of a lot was within the <br />specified radius. He suggested that this should be measured the way City Engineer <br />Deichmann specified by following the normal path of the traffic to those areas <br />since some of the area within this radius could fall in a residential district or <br />even the Metro Parks. Mr. Conway pointed out that it is specified that these <br />stores must front on Lorain Road, Brookpark Road, or Great Northern Boulevard so <br />that any superstore is confined to those streets. Since a half mile is 2,640 <br />feet, a lot which was 1,452 feet deep might not fit entirely within the 1/2 mile <br />area. Mr. Tallon noted that neither would a lot that had 1,200 foot frontage. Mr. <br />Conway suggested that it should be specified that there must be direct access to <br />the store by a 4 lane road and noted that Stearns Road is still anly 2 lanes. In <br />response to questions, he advised that Clague Road was not going to be 4 lanes, <br />even if a west bound access to I-480 was added. The members studied the maps. Mr. <br />Conway questioned if, since any superstore must be located on these 3 roads, <br />would that necessarily limit access from other roads, such as with the Sherwin <br />Williams property which faces Lorain, but also has frontage on Mill Road. Mr. <br />Dubelko did not believe it would, but advised that this should be stated <br />specifically. Mr. Orlowski believed that allowing access from other streets <br />should be within the Commission's purview and the Planning Commission should <br />decide if additional accesses would facilitate the movement of traffic. It was <br />agreed to send this ordinance back to Council with these various suggestions and <br />if Mrs. 0'Rourke or Mr. Thomas, who are not present, have other suggestions they <br />could send letters directly to Council. B. Gorris moved to refer Ord. 93-140 back <br />to Council with the following suggestions: that they include language that <br />requires a direct access to the parcel via a road with a minimum of 4 lanes, <br />while the Commission agrees that the language relating to distance from the <br />interchange ma.kes a lot of sense, it is believed that Council should amend the <br />language to incorporate exactly fiom which point the measurement should occur, <br />i.e. the center line of the interchange or the center line of the interstate, it <br />must be a specific point. The second thing to be addressed is what portion of the <br />lot, if any, should fall within this radius, it would probably be an 'undue <br />hardship to expect all of the lot to fall within that area, should it be a <br />portion of the lot, one driveway, what exactly should fall with the radius, <br />seconded by L. Orlowski, and unanimously approved. During the motion it was <br />clarified that the 4 lane road would be required from the interchange to the <br />parcel involved to eliminate having traffic to a superstore on a two lane road <br />such as Stearns Road is now. Also cluring the motion, Mr. Gorris asked Mr. Tallon <br />if they should include his belief that a 1/2 mile might be too restrictive. <br />4