02/01/1995 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

S comei: was visible from the entire street. Mr. Orlowski stated that this was a total development with the property that goes down Great Northern Boulevard to Brookpark Road and they are at least 70 to 80 parking short of code requirements. He noted that Riser Foods put in the traffic light, and Marjak Development put very little into the shopping center. He maintained that they came before the Plauniug Commission every two years for something; at one time they wanted to put a building next to Firestone and it was denied; later, they were allowed to put in an ATM machine for National City Bank. He maintained that this property has very little landscaping, and that the two family house that is to be demolished does generate income so he does not believe that there is any taking of property. He stated that both Entemann's and Kinko's generate so much traffic that they create congestion all the way to Fleharty Road even witfiout this build.ing. He thinks that 5 variances are far too many, and believed that the property was over developed. Mr. Gonway advised that the parking for this structure complies, variances were granted for the overall development on the other parcels of land. Mr. Orlowski believed that the total parking must be considered since this is all one development. In response to Mr. Koberna's questions, Mr. Mongello clarified that the basement was for storage and Mr. Conway advised that the total leasable area, not including hallways, eta was 7,000 square feet. Councihuan McKay explained that starting in 1988 the codes were studied by Robert Hill, an. expert, along witfi others in the city, and the new codes were presented to Council in 1990. Anyone who had any objection to them could have objected at that time. Prior to that there had been many complaints to Council about buffers and green area along Lorain Road. In this case he is more concemed about the buffering against the neighboring properties. He read the preface of the eode that stated that it was formulated to insure an orderly development for the safety, health, and welfare of the residents of North Ohnsted. He believed that if the variance for the rear buffer is granted, it would really violate that, since children must wait for the school bus-at that corner and a child could get injured. Mrs. Weaver asked what the third unit would contain, and was told it possibly would be a dental office. She believed that this would cause traffic problems. Mr. Glazier stated that there was no signed lease for that unit, but the 40 foot depth. the buildiug would -limit the use. Mrs. Hnffman advised that they had had a potential buyer for their house, but when it took them 10 minutes to pu11 out of the street, they decided not to buy. The members agreed that this was a high traffic area. Mr. Golonka stated that knew the codes before they bought the property. Mr. Gomersall responded that the neighbors knew that tlus was commercial property before they purchased their homes. The neighbors objected to that and Mrs. Weaver stated that there were only homes there when they bought the property 41 years ago. Mr. Golonka stated that when the shopping center was built, they were promised 15 feet of landscaping, but they never got it. Mr. Kost asked if the board would take safety into consideration, especially for the children who wait for the bus at that corner and noted that the children from Bailey also waited there too. Mr. Glazier agreed that the ingress and egress at Fleharty was not a wise idea if children waited for the bus there. He stated that they will put up a structure. The developers agreed to withdraw the driveway on Fleharty. Neighbors again complained that trucks are unloading at Rini's at 6:30 a.m, cars backed up going into Entemann's, the Litehouse employees' park on Fleharty; they wanted the access closed onto Fleharty, but objected that a 20. foot drive. around the west side of the building which would eliminate most of the landscaping; they believed that the drive on Lorain, just east of Fleharty, should be eliminated for better visibility and safety. After some discussion, the develo.pers agreed to withdraw the request for the drive onto Fleharty. Mr. Gomersall suggested a 20 foot drive east of the new building: He also noted that the glass company does 5