My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05/09/1995 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
1995
>
1995 Planning Commission
>
05/09/1995 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:32:55 PM
Creation date
1/29/2019 8:29:40 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
1995
Board Name
Planning Commission
Document Name
Minutes
Date
5/9/1995
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
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
t' . <br /> <br />require him to do that since the parking conforms to the proposed use, he was merely forewarning Mr. <br />Case of what might be required if the use of the building were changed in the future. Mr. Case advised <br />that he would be adding one curb cut on the west side of the property: Mr. Tallon questioned the <br />necessity of this drive and why they could not use one drive between the two buildings. Mr. Case <br />responded the west drive would be used for U.P. S. pick up and for trucks coming into the retail store. <br />They are planniug a 10 foot buffer with arborvitae and a 6 foot high board on board fence and he intends <br />to keep the middle drive mainly for emergency vehicles. He believed that if they had customers cars in <br />both lots, with deliveries being made through the center, there would be mass confusion. He clarified that <br />the existing building would be used for motorcycles and water craft accessories and the larger building <br />would be for trucks. It was estimated that the adjacent west drive is about 5 feet from the common <br />property line. The members studied the plans. Mr. Tallon suggested that he move the building about 10 <br />feet to the west in order to have a 28 foot drive down the center of property, thus eliininating the <br />western drive as well as another curb cut on Lorain Road which is only 5 foot away. Mr. Case believed <br />that this was only a parking lot, not a driveway. He responded that one of the loading zones in the back is <br />for receiving, and' one is for shipping and since they are a mail order business they have a many outgoing <br />deliveries. Pushing the building to the west, will restrict access to the loading zone. He estimated that <br />tliey noi7nally get three U.P. S. and three RP. S. deliveries a day which is why he is putting up the fence <br />with the arborvitae. Mr. Koeth noted that there will also be semi-tractor tailors. Mr. Case advised that the <br />traffic engineer had reviewed the plans, and had no problem with the layout. Mr. Tallon explained that the <br />commission was trying to eliminate the number of curb cuts on Lorain Road. Since this will have to go to <br />the board of zoning appeals, the commission can address the buffers when it comes back. Mr. Conway <br />advised that a special permit would be needed for the addition to the existing structure. Mr. Benedict, a <br />neighbor to the rear, objected because there was a 6 foot fence adjacent to the commercial property, but <br />nothing to shield his residential property which, in one or two places, is only about 40 feet away. He is <br />also concerned about water problems since he has standing water on his property about two months out <br />of the year. He pointed out his property on the map. He maintained that the back lot (sublot 19) was <br />residential, but Mr. Conway advised that it was commercial. Mr. Benedict stated that this was now all <br />one deed, and it says it is residentiaL He also complained that motorcycles are being driven on the grass <br />area now, and is concerned about them being driven on the asphalt. He questioned if there would be any <br />fencing installed so he would not have to look at the loading docks. Mr. Tallon advised that the <br />commission is only recommend.ing to the board of zoning appeals at this time, these issues will be <br />discussed when the proposal comes back. Mr. Tallon suggested that Mr. Case consider the concerns of <br />the neighbors when the plans come back from the board of zoning appeals. <br />Motion: R Tallon moved to refer the Stylin' Concepts at 29919 Lorain Road, the proposal to construct a <br />building for retail, office and warehouse use on lot adjacent to existing facility to the board of zoning <br />appeals with the recommendation that the board of zoning appeals grant the 10 foot front setback <br />variance for the building and also the special permit for the existing building. The motion was seconded <br />by A. Manuing, and unanimously approved. <br />N. NEW DEVELOPMENTS AND SUBDIVISIONS: (Heard at this point). <br />1) Stylin' Concepts Assembly Plat. <br />The proposal is to combine permauent parcel nos. 234-14-11 and 234-14-12 into one (1) parcel, which is <br />the site of the proposed Stylin Concepts new building (above). Location is the south side of Lorain Road, <br />west of Christman Drive. Zoniug is retail business, General, entirely and the proposed assembly conforms <br />to Zoning Code requirements for frontage and area. <br />2
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.