My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10/25/1994 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
1994
>
1994 Planning Commission
>
10/25/1994 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:32:42 PM
Creation date
1/29/2019 7:50:06 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
1994
Board Name
Planning Commission
Document Name
Minutes
Date
10/25/1994
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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
ask that Council to take these under strong considerations. That the developer landbank 150 additional <br />parking spaces on his property, those 150 parking spaces can be at the developers' discretion, but those <br />1501audbanked spaces should appreciably increase the amount of green space and buffering that exists on <br />the development, and we make that recomnaendatiou based on several facts that we have established <br />tonight, one is by our engineer and our traffic engineer that there is a general connectiou between the <br />reduction iri traffic from the previous development and an acceptable reduction in necessary parkiug <br />spaces. We also recommend to Cou.ncil that they seek a limitation on interior square footage of retail <br />space existing on this parcel, that limitation should be 80,000 (per wut) and that would restrict the <br />introduction of super stores or large traffic generating retailers that would need such square footage. We <br />also recommend to Council that they take into consideration the application to the Ohio Public Woi•ks <br />Commission for a grant that the developer has agreed to cede a certain right of way or property to the <br />city for improvements. We also recommend that all suggestions and statements of the city forester for the <br />salvation of the trees as indicated on his memo and attached to this motion be accepted and <br />implemented, and that those trees be saved and that the city forester have final say over how those trees <br />are treated throughout construction and in the final development. We would like to incorporate all the <br />recommendations of the Architectural Review Board. We would like the City Council to also take note <br />that the McDonald's drive on these plans is also closed and does not exist and that there will be au 8 foot <br />fence on the mound and not a 6 foot fence, and also take note that the relocation of the drive on Mill <br />Road might affect the forester's recommendation for the salvation of those trees and that the relocation <br />of that drive for safety as well as the forester's recommendations should somehow be taken into <br />consideration and reviewed for the beuefit of the residents and for traffic safety. We would also like to <br />pass this through Safety and Engineering. We would like to point out to Council that tlus is 175,000 <br />square foot of general retail, and that the nature of the stores cau change any time down the road aud <br />that Couucil consider that during their deliberations, and plan for the worst possible impact on the <br />coinmunity and make certain that our residents do not suffer as a result. The motion was seconded by <br />Ms. Cameron-Alston. Roll call on motion: Thomas, Alston, Miller (with great apprehension), O'Rourke, <br />yes. Mr. Gorris, no. Motion carned. During the framing of the motion, Mr. Thomas clarified for Mr. <br />Dubelko that he had not made these recommendations as a condition for approval, he had asked that <br />Council take this into consideration and had recommended strongly that they pursue these actions since <br />the Commission does not have the right to malce any of this a condition of approval, but are makiug veiy <br />strong recommendations based on their perception of safety, impact, and quality of life, etc., that the <br />charter requires the Commission to consider. <br />2) ?.Cycle Works, 29601 Lorain Road. <br />Request for conditioual use permit to repair motorcycles inside building. <br />Mr. Brete Clemens and his brother, Bart, owuers, presented information explauung their business. Mr. <br />Thomas uoted that he knows a persou who repairs motorcycles, and after every repair he revs them up <br />creating a lot of noise. Mr. Clemens stated that after he repairs a motorcycle he usually wanns them up <br />for a minute or two and theu takes them out to Lorain Road and then to the freeway to test them. He <br />stated that he did not waut to bother the residents. Tliey explained that a lot of their repairs are minor, <br />changing tires, bolting on chrome accessories, etc. Mi•. Thomas believed that the customers could also <br />cause a disturbance. Mr. Clemens stated that they have been there for over a year and their customers do <br />ride in to purchase parts, and he does not know of any complaints. He clarified that they did not do major <br />repairs, they concentrate on keeping the motorcycles safe. Building Commissioner Conway explained that <br />during an annual iuspection by the Fue Departmeut, they found equipment which had not been used <br />8
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.