My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07/26/1994 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
1994
>
1994 Planning Commission
>
07/26/1994 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:32:41 PM
Creation date
1/29/2019 7:48:14 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
1994
Board Name
Planning Commission
Document Name
Minutes
Date
7/26/1994
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
Conway would like the access as short as possible, it was decided to eluninate the picket fence <br />and have access to the front. In reference to the landscaping in the front, Mr. Thomas would like <br />it mounded more than the 6 or 8 inches shown. Mr. Krekus believed that it could be done. City <br />Engineer Deichmann advised that they had no objection to the westernuiost exit and advised that <br />the signal activator would be approxuuately 3 to 4 feet behind the sidewalk and eatended 10 to 15 <br />feet back. Mr. Thomas suggested a sign advising where to stop to activate the sigual to prevent <br />cars from pulling up over the sidewalk. In reference to the emergency door in the alley, W. <br />Tallon pointed out that the existing pole would hinder opening the door. Since there is a back <br />door that could be used for egress, W. Conway believed that this emergency door could be <br />el'vninated as long as they marked the exit through the kitchen. In reference to the lighting plan, <br />Mr. Tallon suggested that they reduce the height of the 24 foot poles to no more than 15 feet high <br />along the back line and leave zero tolerance at that point even if they have to add another pole; <br />the fixture on the northwest corner must be sluelded and the pole should be reduced to 16 feet <br />since it is close to the westerly driveway. He then decided that the other poles could also be 16 <br />feet instead of 15 as stipulated before. The huniuaries will have to be reduced accordingly and the <br />wall-paks in the alleyway must be down lights. It was agreed that the picket fence would be <br />installed in front and a gate, extended out from the trash enclosure, could be installed in the rear <br />to close offthe alley. Mrs. Strnad and other neighbors ou Silverdale aud Selliurst Roads had not <br />been uotified of these hearings because they were not adjacent to the building, expressed coucerns <br />over safety and traffic since they have trouble getting in and out of their street now. The <br />neighbors doubted that a restaurant would generate less traffic thau the bank as the developers <br />had stated. Mr. Landru explained the proposal to the neighbors. T'he neighbors were still <br />concemed about how the traffic lights are being changed and City Engineer Deichmann explained <br />the new closed loop traffic control system which will re-do all the traffic signals in the city and <br />further advised that a greeu light will be added to this exit which will not be greeu at the same <br />time the Silverdale light is green. Neighbors questioned if the light would control the cars coming <br />out of the gas station since this has been an ongoing problem. Mr. Orlowski noted that some cars <br />coming from the gas station cut across Lorain Road to get to Brookpark. Mr. Gorris questioned <br />how drivers exiting the gas station would know that they were to use the light at the restaurant <br />exit. W. Deichinanu was uot sure if there is to be a sigu indicating that the gas station drive is <br />controlled by the signal, but one could be installed, and the signal will be on a mast arm so it will <br />be visible from both drives. T'he members studied the signal plans and there were several private <br />discussions. The signalization plan was then explained to the neighbors. T'he neighbors understood <br />the plan, but were not sure it would work. Because these people had uot been notified of tlus <br />meeting, Mr. Goi7-is explained that, under the ordinance, only the adjacent neighbors were <br />notified. He further explained how the developers had attempted to alleviate the traffic problems <br />and co-develop the two buildings. In reference to the signalization program, Nlr. Deiclunann <br />advised that all inforination has been submitted to the Federal Highway Administration for <br />approval, they have heard that it has been approved and are hoping that official approval will be <br />given witlun the next month. Mr. Miller pointed out that the old buildiug is being removed wluch <br />will improve sight lines, and he suggested that the exit be right turn only uutil the signalizatiou <br />program is installed. Mr. Deiclunann and the developers agreed. Mr. Thomas suggested that the <br />neighbors attend the B.Z.D. on August 15th at 7:00 p.m. and couucil meetings to make their <br />conceins known to council and to the administration. B. Gorris moved to approve the Boston <br />Clucken proposal, 26440 Lorain Road to construct a building and co-develop with the adjacent <br />build'uig to the east incorporating all the recommendations of the Arclutectural Review Board and <br />2
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.