04/23/1985 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

._ , PLANNING COMMISSION r APRIL 23, 1985 PAGE 2 being provided. Six or seven units are planned depending on the needs of the tenants. Rear portion of the property will remain undeveloped. T?ao access drives are planned off Lorain Road, west drive (opposite Walter Road) will go to rear of building. All lighting will be on the building. r1rs. Brown questioned why building could not be set back in order to increase green area in front. Mr. Draeger explained that because adjacent motel is so far forward, the building would not be visible if set back further. Mr. Morgan doubted that a few feet back would make that much difference. There was concern that the traffic pattern with angeled parking and two entrances could be a problem; access drive opposite Walter Road might create more traffic congestion; and turning radius of rear drive might be tight. City Engineer Schaller advised that his records'showed that this property is two parcels and should be assembled. Mr. Draeger's plan showed that the property as one parcel. T. Morgan moved to forward the plans for.the Hoty Strip Shopping Center, approximately 24363 Lorain Road, to the Architectural Board of Review; and to the Engineering Department for review of the retention system and required drainage and also to verify if this is one or two parcels; and to the Safety Department for review of access to the back of the building for Fire Department equipment, and also to the Safety Department for what their feelings might be relative to driveway that faces Walter Road, as well as, the easternmost driveway, and comments relative to congestion in this area, seconded by E. Traczyk, and unanimously approved. IV. NEW DEVELOPMENTS AND SUBDIVISIONS: No items. V. COMMUNICATIONS: Chairman Burns explained that a resident adjacent to the Mac Donald's office building addition has approached the Commission requesting that they re- study the plans in order to request a security fence along her property . line. Mrs. Allen, the neighbor, also stated that she was never notified of the proposal. According to the records of the November 13, 1984 meet- ing, a notice was sent to her (notice was not returned to the Building Department). Assistant Law Director Dubelko stated that since approval has been given by all departments and all codes have been adhered to, he could not recommend that the Planning Commission reconsider the proposal, and that Mrs. Allen should approach Council. Mrse Al1en was present and restated her request and also advised that she had talked with her ward councilman, but had not been given any satisfac.tion. Mrs. Allen has no problem with the development, however, she feels that the large parking lot which is adjacent to her rear property line will be a security threat to her family, and will reduce her property values. Commission discussed the problem. It was decided that the Commission would draft a resolution re- questing the fence, and suggested that Mrs. Al1en and a council member could present it to MacDonalds. Mr. Morgan will draft the resolution and present it at the next meeting.