09/27/1994 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

?• 4 have to pay part of it. A benefit is dependent on how much it improves the property, it is not that there is a better road, it would be a dollar value. If it would benefit the entire city, that would be a different situation. Councihnan Limpert asked if something stronger than a board on board fence could be requested, since the residents are concerned about security, a wood fence might not be strong enough. Mr. Gorris noted that they had asked Wal-Mart for brick. In reference to the memo dealing with the two cases Mr. Gareau advised that two examples given in the memo were different than assessments, they were exaction cases and he explained that it was a taking without due process of law. He was not talking about that, because North Olmsted does not have impact fees. It was decided to forward the proposal to the Architectural Review Board. R. Tallon moved to refer the site plan for Water Tower Square Shopping Center to the Architectural Review Board with the following recommendations: that the dumpster doors either be changed to face the west (away from the residents) or that the doors be made to close automatically; that the developers try to relocate the garage doors to the south side of store `B"; that a stacking lane be added ori Lorain Road from Rally's to the entrance drive; that the height of the mound be raised to 8 feet and with a 6 foot high board on board fence installed on the top and that some detail should be provided identifyiug how fence will be reinforced; that the H.V.A.C. units be screened with some sort of sound proofing material; that sidewalks be installed from the sidewalk on the north end of the building to connect with the sidewalk on Mill Road; that the entry on store `B' be lowered to at least 32 feet; that the cross access to McDonald's either be elimiuated or else the developer should show evidence of the agreement that was reached. The Commission would like the estimated cost of any infrastructure improvements that will be needed submitted by the Engineering Department at the next Planning Commission meeting. To again refer the proposal to the forester for his review of the mature trees and to the Safety Department for their input. We further request that the developer think about limiting the square footage of a unit for a single tenant and return with a decision at the next meeting. The motion was seconded by L. Orlowski, and unanimously approved. Duriug the framing of the motion several issues were discussed. Mr. Papandreas showed that sidewalks were planned from Lorain Itoad to the building on the colored site plan, but were not clearly identified on the plans. Mr. Niiller would like the sale of fire arms prohibited at this location, Law Director Gareau advised this could not be done for one store since the city has no ordinance prohibiting the sale of fire arms, he will be reviewing an ordinance now at the request of the Mayor regarding this. gie also advised that Planning Commission approval could not be conditioned upon the developer provid.ing infrastructure improvements, this would have to be done by Council, however the Commission could request this information. Mr. Tallon stated that he no problem with the lighting plan, the developer had shown zero tolerance at the Mill Road lot line as he had requested. Mr. Goms and Mr. Thomas assured Mr. Papandreas that they believed that they were not plamiiug to combine units to make one 99,000 square foot unit (just under the superstore limitation) however, they would like some assurance that no tenant would go above 45,000 or 55,000 square foot. Mr. Papandreas agreed to look into this. He also explained that he would only be presenting the pylon sign to the Arclutectural Review Board, not the wall signs, and Mr. Conway advised that the pylon sign would need a variance because it was to include the names of the individual tenants and is the only variance needed by this project. IV. NEW DEVELOPMENTS AND SUBDIVISIONS: 10