Laserfiche WebLink
! <br />believed that the buses and diesel fumes would take away from the historic district. When the <br />buses were kept at other end of Butternut, they were able to move off of Butternut fairly quickly. <br />He did not have an issue with the administration building but questioned when the buses will be <br />moved for maintenance. <br />Charlotte Heine of 5751 Fitch stated that she did not have water issues until I-480 went in. She <br />was concerned about the pipe along I-480 having issues and the water from the parking area <br />adding add to the problem. She would like to see more done regarding storm water. Mr. Malone <br />questioned Mr. DiFranco regarding the pipe under I-480. The plans state the pipe is shown to be <br />an 18 inch pipe, and is property of I-480. Mr. DiFranco stated that the Engineering Department <br />can inspect the pipe and see its condition. <br />Mr. Henderson stated that a dumpster enclosure plan and lighting plan will be submitted. The <br />buses will be washed at the maintenance garage, not at this site. Buses would be moved to <br />maintenance garage during business hours. Mr. Rerko asked if a compromise could be made to <br />reduce the amount of buses being stored at the property. Mr. Henderson stated that from a <br />transporta.tion standpoint, it would be complicated to dispatch buses from multiple sites. This site <br />is the largest site, most accessible, in the middle of the district, and has the greatest distance to <br />neighbors. Mr. Henderson stated that a professional traffic study was not performed. Mr. Rerko <br />stated that PDC previously rej ected a subdivision for having too much traffic (about 20 cars), <br />which was considerably less than this proposal. Ms. Wenger stated that the traffic type would be <br />difFerent versus an increase in volume; therefore a traffic study would not be beneficial. Mr. <br />Patton questioned if buses could be stored elsewhere for sporting events to mitigate problems for <br />neighbors. <br />Mr. O'Malley stated that the PDC must look at the development plans and leave the <br />infrastructure issues to the Engineering Department and suggested the case be tabled so the <br />schools can address their concerns. Mr. Henderson stated that he believed the proposal is the best <br />solution giveri the school district's funds and other site restrictions. Mr. Malone asked if there <br />other ways to detain storm water to alleviate flooding on neighboring properties. Mr. Rerko <br />suggested a bioswale. He asked the applicant to consider realigning the drive so the bus lights <br />would not shine on the houses. Mr. Malone requested a school representative familiar with the <br />site and operations as well as the project engineer be present at the next meeting. <br />Mr. Malone moved, seconded by Ms. Nader, to table 16-5267; North Olmsted City Schools; <br />26669 Butternut Ridge, motion passed 5-0. <br />COMMU1vICATIONS <br />Rules & Regulations <br />Ms. Wenger stated that the updates included removing the caucus prior to meetings, removed <br />cases starting after 10:00 pm, updated Clerk of Commissions to Administrative Assistant as well <br />as other miscellaneous details. Mr. O'Malley brought up the issue regarding owners being <br />required to attend meetings. Mr. Malone suggested that the owner attendance be determined in <br />the staff review. Mr. Rerko stated it is at.the risk of the owner to not be at the meetings since the <br />plans may be tabled. Mr. Rerko suggested limiting the size of submitted drawings.