My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01/10/1995 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
1995
>
1995 Planning Commission
>
01/10/1995 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:32:52 PM
Creation date
1/29/2019 8:26:35 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
1995
Board Name
Planning Commission
Document Name
Minutes
Date
1/10/1995
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
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
should consider that Kinko's aud Entenmann's (immediately adjacent) do generate a lot of traffic. <br />Mr. Mongello agreed, but the owners are asking that the Commission consider what it existing <br />on both sides of the building, and realize that this is a fill in to complete the shopping center. It <br />was clarified that they do own the Safelite building, but the corner parcel was purchased this <br />year, and the code changes were made in 1991, but they have been uegotiating for this property <br />far longer. Nlr. Mongello advised that the interior walls could be removed to make one large unit. <br />Mr. Couway advised that parking requirements would not change for a retail unit, uuless it <br />became a restaurant or a place of assembly. Mr. Koeth questioned why the loadiug zoue was in <br />the back in view of the statements that the deliveries would be in the front. Mr. Mongello stated <br />that the loading zone was shown to comply with the code, and actually UPS usually parked <br />anywhere that was convenient. Mr. Koeth suggested taking truck traffic around beside Kinko's <br />instead of having a drive off a residential street. Mr. Mongello believed that they could put in a <br />drive parallel to Fleharty, on the west side of the property which is the same situation that <br />Litehouse Pools has., T1ie members discussed the plans individually. Chairmau Tallon asked for <br />the residents' comments. W. Pfaf? who lives directly belund the property, advised that the <br />neighbors are opposed to the development because there is enough traffic on Lorain Road at <br />present with Litehouse Pools and Kinko's. He maintained that it sometimes took 10 minutes to <br />inake a left hand turn, and it is easier best to go completely around the block to go west with a <br />driveway onto Fleharty aud auother one to the east, they would never get out. He believed that <br />the developers were infi-uiging on the rights of the residents on Fleharty. He maintained that one <br />of their buildings is 4 inches offlus property line. He questioned why a loading dock was needed <br />iu the back if the basement was to be used for storage. He further advised that there have been <br />many probleins with this development, during the construction of the building, they cut off the <br />natural swale and want to dig a sewer through his back yard. He asked that they give the <br />residents of the city a break, that there is enough commercial property already. Ms. Sokolowski, <br />who lives about 6 houses down the street, stated that there were a lot of children on the street <br />who have to take the bus from that corner, right at that corner, the buses cannot pull down their <br />street because there is no outlet. She complained that during the Christmas season, Litehouse <br />House Pools' employees and customers park about half way down the their street, semi truck <br />pull out of the side of Litehouse House Pools where there is no drive onto their street and she <br />had to call the Police. She is frequeutly wakened at 3:00 a.m by garbage trucks, her Councilman <br />claims that he could do nothing about it, and when she complains to the company, they stop for <br />awlule, and then it starts again. If there is a car pulling out of Litehouse Pools, they cannot see <br />well enough to turn left and it is even difficult turn right. IV1rs. May advised that Litehouse pools <br />were deuied permission to have a drive on Fleharty, but if this drive goes in they will have the <br />right to ask for one. So there will be semi's tuming out from both sides of Bailey. Property <br />values will go down, their neighbor could not sell his house because there was so much <br />commercial traffic. She also complained that Litehouse pools light shined into her windows, and <br />this will happen with this development. Mr. Hoffinau, the neighbor who could not sell his house, <br />advised that it was up for sale for 5 or 6 months and his property value is $10,000 to $15,000. <br />lower because of Litehouse Pools. He believed that this building would further decrease it. Mrs. <br />Wensink stated that trucks would drive down the street and have to back up to get back to <br />Lorain Road. She maintained that the developers knew of the codes changes before they <br />presented this. She also complained that when she had an emergency and could not get out of the <br />street to get to the Med-Center and also because they have no outlet, their street is one of the <br />last to be plowed. She maintained that there is enough commercialism in North Olmsted uow. <br />The ueighbors do not believe a traffic light would help because there are cars turning left into the <br />car wash, and Root Road., Mr. Miller suggested that they contact their Councilman about <br />3
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.