03/22/1994 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

of a light source from the property line or an area at the mound; there will be reflected light or a bright spot if a person looked directly at the light. Mr. Orlowski noted that the bank of lights by the Corporate Center were shielded (shown as "D" on the plan). He is recommending that all the lights on the south and the bank of lights along Brookpark Road be shielded from the neighbors. In reference to the signs, Mro Orlowski questioned who would benefit from the signs on the east side of the T.B.O. since they would only be seen by the Clareshire residents and he would like them removed. He believed that, other than the Wal-Mart sign and the Tire and Lube sign on the front of the builcling, the other signage on the building was excessive and recomended that it be removed. He noted that when Tire America was approved, the Architectural Review Board had recommended that all the individual product identification signs not be perm-itted. Chairman Gorris asked Mr. Papandreas, a representative of Biskind Development Company, if they had applied for access onto Brookpark Road since he had received a copy of a letter from O.D.O.T. which indicated that while access had been requested in the past, the formal process was never completed and there was no granted access. Mr. Papandreas responded that they have recently requested that the process for approval be implemented. He stated that they do have a letter agreeing to the access subject to pinpointing the exact location. Though the request did not specify two accesses, the Wal-Mart plans showing both accesses did accompany the letter. Mr. Gorris questioned if the Commission could proceed with this considering that no access has been granted to the site. Assistant Law Director Dubelko advised that they could approve the proposal conditioned upon the State granting the access. Mr. Gorris asked if the Commission approved the site, would the State give any credence as to where the Conunission wanted the access. Mr. Dubelko responded that there has been a pending application since 1989, and at that time the only approval required to request access was a letter from the mayor stating that this particular site was satisfactory to the city. This procedure ha.s been changed by legislation, but he was not sure what the approval process was now, but this application is pending and had been approved under the old law. Actually, the State must approve or deny a pending application. Councilman McKay clarified that legislation was passed about 6 months ago and under this ordinance any new request for access onto Brookpark Road must be approved by Council only. He noted that the first curb cut was pending, but not the second anee Mr. Dubelko agreed that City Council would have to give approval to the State for the second cut. Mr. Gorris believed that this proposal should have gone to Council first, because according to the letter there has been no official curb cut granted on Brookpark Road because the owner never paid for it. Mr. Dubelko believed that this would still be a pending application since it was never rejected by the State. Mra McKay advised that on December 24, 1989, the previous Mayor sent a letter to Council members stating that if they had any ob jection to the curb cut they should respond by December 31st or the application would be forwarded to the State with the approval of the Mayore Mr. Papandreas stated that they had a letter stating that the application had been approved. Mr. Gorris verified with Mr. Dubelko, that what he stated was, that since this curb cut was still pending, even though they did not move forward with it, it was approved under the old rules and this would not require City Council approval. Mr. Dubelko believed that to be the case, but he will take it The second drive must be approved under the new laws. Mr. Gorris advised Mr. Papandreas that he would like to see a plan showing the tie in with this intersection with the property across the street and a proposed future development of that property. He clarified that if the proposed future drive is in a portion of that lot which would make it very difficult to develop the parcel across the street advantageously, he wants it established that this hardship was self,imposed by the developers, not by the city. He believed that tl-ic Commission