04/22/1986 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

i , . "? . • . _? PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 22, 1986 PAGE 6 easement supposedly held by the current owner through adjacent property now belonging to Mr. and Mrs. Mahoney, 5402 Dorothy Drive, who have no record of this easement on their deed. Assistant Law Director Dubelko advised that this question has no bearing on the assembly of the lots. In respect to approving the building plans, Planning Commission is re- quired only to approve on the basis of the Zoning Codes and the drainage easement is not re]:evant. The City cannot decide if the easement is valid, and if there is a d.ispute between the parties involved this must be re- solved,by the courts. J. Brown.moved to approve the Kenny.King Gornoration Assembly P1at whieh is a proPosal to` combine three existing parcels-, 235-7 Z`,.25, and 29, into one parcel, Iocated om the south side of Lorairi Road between, M'cKenzie andDeeker. Roads, second'ed bg E: Traczyk; and` unanimous ly appxoved?:: III. BUILDING DEPARTMENT REQUESTS: (Continued at this point) 7). Kennv King Restaurant; 27899 and 279'15 Lorain Road•' Proposal to construet restaurant. (Heard by Arcfiitectural Board of Review Apxil 16, 1986). D. Salisbury, attomey, and R. CampbeTl, presid'ent of the Kenny King, Corporation and A. Lawrence, real estate broker, advised that the Archi- tectural Board had, approved the building and ma.terials as presented; " they had; however,, req;uiredi a3;! mound in, the landscaped area to shieldt adj acent residents from h'eadliglits , had al:so- req.uired that the. rear area be. seed'ed,, not j;ust maintained as!,. stated on plarisandt stiuulated a wood fence on the rear property line consistent witH tlie. fence on the adjacent property.; The Board had, also reques,ted. tliat Planning Commission review. the intemaT traffic fTow, suggesting tfiat a drive be eut across the front of tYie property to enable ca-rs to; drive from one side of the park- ing lot to another without going out, onto Lorain Road. Mr. Salisbury does not believe sucfi a traffic pattern would be neeessary, based on- their'other establisfiments and taking into.consideratiori. that fifty per- , eent of tfieir- business is tfirougli, their take out window. I'n referenee ' to; the mounding, the developer believes.: that, it woul'd detract from the planned' Iandscaping (6' Austrian pines andd'ogwood) and would compoun& the,drainage probTems'. They maintai-n that.replaeing the existing wire ferice on the rear of the nroperty with a,wood+fence would be a financial hard'ship since. tfiey will be spending $15,0001. on Tand'seaping and this requirement could necessitate el'iminating some.of tfie front landscaping. They will be re-seeding part of'the rear property where sewer lines are to be installed, but are questioning the need-to re-seed the entire area. Police Department had no objections to the proposal, b ut did agree that the drive through speakers directed at the residential area eould cause prolilems. Mr. Bierman and Mr. Wixted agree that wood fence should be required. Mr. Gorris believes tliat by having only one curb cut and installing a drive.in front of the building, thus eliminating some of the front landscaping would reduce. costs so the_y could put up the fence in the rear. Mr. Salisb ury responded that none of their restaurants have one drive and that they believe a single drive would cause safety probiems with the drive through; and that such a traffic pattern would necessitate moving the building back so that it would be even closer to the residential area. Building Commissioner Spino advised that garking " conforms to code. Mr. and Mrs. Mahoney, 5402 Dorothy Drive, questioned '? the.drainage which will be discharged onto their property and stated that