Laserfiche WebLink
<br />g <br />' PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 225, 1984 PAGE 3 <br />Proposal is to subdivide parcels 231-32-2 and 231-32-3 into five (5) <br />sublots. <br />Mr. McDermott explained the proposal. The rear portion of two lots <br />now facing Columbia Road will be combined and subdivided into 3 <br />buildable sublots facing Gessner Rd. and the two lots with existing <br />homes will remain. .All lots conform to the "B" residential require- <br />ments. J. Roberts moved to approve the Vicko and Rathbun Subdivision <br />proposal to subdivide parcels 231-32-2 and 231-32-3 into five (5) <br />sublots as shown on submitted drawing, seconded by J. Wixted, and <br />unanimously approved. <br />III. BUILDING DEPARTMENT REQUESTS (Continued from above):. ,,. <br />2) Sisters Chicken and.Biscuits, 25730 and 25710 Lorain Rd. <br />Proposal to construct restaurant (signs included). <br />(Hea.rd by the Architectural Board of Review May 16, 1984). <br />Commission reviewed changes made in plans and the recommendations of the <br />klrchitectural Board of Review. Eight snow drift crab trees will be <br />pl.anted alang the Ranchview landscape area; drainage has been reviewed <br />by the Engineeri.ng Department. It was noted that the two lots would <br />have to be ass.embled,___No new £encing_ or..landscaping i.s.-planned..on <br />east property line and dumpster is sti11 placed near this line. A <br />letter from Mr. Theisling, owner of this commercial property to the east <br />which includes both an office and a residence, was submitted requesting <br />a fence, landscape buffer, and relocation of dumpster. Mr. Henning <br />stated that landscaping is costing between $10,000 and $15,000 as is <br />now, and since Mr. Theisling's property is zoned commercial, they are <br />only planning a grass strip on that property line. Building Commis- <br />sionez Gundy submitted a plan showing location of all adjacent drive- <br />ways in relation to proposed driveways. Commission is in agreement <br />that driveway onto Ranchview is not desirable. Mr. Hennings believed <br />that this traffic pattern would be best for the area, and that only a <br />small portion of the cars will be using that exit. The aesthetics of <br />the signs have been approved by the Architectural Board, however size <br />of the pole, sign will have to be reduced to conform to the code. Nei- <br />bozs again stated their objections to the proposal. Mr. Sexton: drive- <br />way on .R,anchview is not acceptable (trucks will be using residential <br />street); Ranchview has no tree lawn (snow must be piled on sidewalks, . <br />foXcing pedestrian to walk in street); Bob Evans proposal will add <br />even moXe tzaffic congestion to area; storm sewers canno.t accommodate <br />more. watex; Qdors and grease will be emitted and will damage adjacent <br />xesidences. Mrs. Martens; does not want the restaurant under any cir- <br />cumstances; more trash wi.ll be left in neighborhood. Mr. Rompf: <br />more-animals will be attracted to neighborhood by garbage, want open - <br />field behind restauzant totally fenced in and especially behind Mrs. <br />Max'tents property; questioned why they are building a restaurant when <br />many are gaing out of business now, Councilman Tallon stated that <br />j'nput from the neighbors had been appreciated and he urged that the <br />Comm:?ssion make its decision tonight. It was explained to neighbors <br />that all hoods must conform to N.F.P.A. requirements and also all