05/28/1985 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.. .. v PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 28, 1985 PAGE 2 approve the Hoty Plaza strip center as presented, incorporating all recommendations of the Architectural Board of Review with the excep- tion of those recommendations as they relate to the westernmost drive- way; we recommend the construction within the driveway of an island arrangement so as to permit only ingress to the property turning right from Lorain Road and egress from the property turning right_on to Lorain and our approval is solely contingent upon the Safety Department's ap- proval of this new configuration of this westernmost driveway, or another arrangement approved by the Safety Department, seconded by J. Burns, and unanimously approved. 2) Canterbury Tennis Academy, 5870 Canterbury Rd. Proposal to construct tennis school Heard by Architectural Board of Review May 22, 1985. Attorney for the developer, R. Perla, advised that the Articles of Incorporation for a non-profit corporation have been_filed but have not been returned by the Secretary of- State; tennis academy-wi11 be operated for members only; only 2 courts (maximum-of 8 people at one t ime)-are - planned; no meals are to be served;--=season-will only be for 6 months; and-school-will only be operated during daylight hours. Mr..Kadar stated that profit was never his motive. Assistant Law Director Dubelko _ reported that a country club was a proper use in a residential area, the Building Commissioner apparently considered it a proper use, since he did not request a ruling_from the Board of Zoning Appeals to determine if it was permitted; and the Board of Zoning Appeals granted a-variance for two-of the restrictions imposed-upon_-country-clubs-. He is also satisfied that they-=p3an to have a-defined-membership, Building Com- - missioner Gundy stated that he did consider this a Country Club and - the use was compatible-with the adjacent-area-. Safety Department -re- port has not been-received. It would be up to the Building Commissioner to r-evoke--the occupancy- certif-icate if non--profi-t_status is _nQ-t-being _ maintained. Building permit cannot be ussued until Articles of Incor- poration for a non-profit cQrporatio.n have been returned. House on pro- perty can remain a residence, this is not a violation of the code. Mr. Waterbury, the contractor, explained-the physical-appearance-of the facility: parking area is asphalt, turnaround is gravel, stairways and pathways are railroad ties and gravel, retaining wall is railroad ties and as many large trees as possible will remairr.--Mr. Gorris is concerned about lighting being installed at a later date since this can be a problem in a residential area. Light could be installed later without Planning Commission's review and they should address this now. Hours of operation are not the purview of the Commission, Council must address this. B. Gorris moved to approve the Canterbury Tennis Academy proposal as submitted with the understanding that this is a non-profit country club within the meaning of the code of North Olmsted and speci- fically request that no building permits be issued until proper proof of non-profitability (approval of the Secretary of State) be submitted to the Law Department; and also request that any future lighting plans be restricted to directing the lights upon the courts, seconded by E. Traczyk, and unanimously approved. It was requested that the Building Department continually moniter to make sure that this is operated as a