04/22/1986 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

VO _ , c PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 22, 1986 PAGE 7 his deed shows no such easement. Mr. Dubelko again stated that as far as the City is concerned, the easement has been presented by the developer and would appear to be valid. The City cannot hold this project up on that basis and if the Mahoneys are contesting the easement they should do so through the courts. Mrs. Mahoney advised that the Architectural Board had required the mounding at the rear of the parking lot because of the 11 foot drop in grade from Lorain Road to Dorothy Drive and in order to screen car lights shining into their windows. She explained that re- placing the fence on the rear property line was for security, it would be too low to act as a screen, but the existing wire fence was rusted and deteriorating. The neighbors are requesting that tfie fence match the ad= jacent fences. Mr. Salisbury stated that they would amend their proposal to include the stockade fence but reiterated their protests; to the mound- ing, claiming that there would only be a 2' drop in grade and'pointing out that there will be 170 feet from the parking area to the baek of the houses. After furtfier study, City Engineer Schaller advised that accord= ing to the plans, the parking area is to be raised and will be higher than the €ence, liut advised that this is the proposed plan, not the approved plan. Mrs. Schmidt, an adjacent neighbor on Decker Road, stated that if parking area is to be raised, she too would need some type of buffering to screen building and lights from iier home explaining that this property will be higher than the adjacent.property and the fence. After considerable discussion, it was decided that since the s creening and fencing as proposed might not be adequate to shield the residential property, the Engineering Department is to study this proliTem and make recommendations. Assistant Law Director Dubelko suggested that the de- veloper must come back with an effective screening plan and that the proposaT could be approved on that basis but no occupancg permit wilT be issued until the developer returns to the Planning Commission with such a plan. B. Gorr•is moved to accept Kenny King Restaurant at 27899 and 27915 Lorain Road, their proposal to construct a restaurant, incorporat- ing all the r.ecommendations of the Architectural Board of Review with the exception of the following: it is our understanding that the rear yard-, the seeding, we interpret that to mean a well maintained grassy area there; once the final engineering approval is given, that the developer has agreed to reappear with plans sufficient to provide screen- ing for those resiclents to the south and east and until such time, no occupancy shall be issued, seconded by E. Traczyk, and unanimously approved. 8) North Olmsted Beverage, south side of Lorain Road two lots east of Wedgewood Dr. Proposal to construct beverage store with drive-through facility and video shop. Mr. Ricchetti, designer, explained that building will be located west of their present location. This will be a combination beverage store and video rental store, twenty parking spaces are provided, 16 are required; two drives are planned. Commission questioned the "adult tapes" noted on plan and questioned if there were an ordinance against them. All tynes of tapes are to be rented, there are no video viewing rooms, and there is no consumption of liquor on the premises. Some trees will be removed, but as many as possible will be saved. Commission would like develoner to consider eliminating one of the drives. B. Gorris moved to refer the North Olmsted Beverage store proposal on the