04/26/2005 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

y Ms. Wenger reviewed that the residents could download business regulations at the North Olmsted web site, or request a copy through the clerk. Mr. Beegan suggested the forester take into consideration the fact that most of the existing trees during winter months have no leaves. The commission assured the residents that once the foresters report is received they would address buffering residential lots in more detail. Mr. Ferguson, reviewed that the first two weeks of operation there would be many deliveries to stock the store. Thereafter, there would only be two to four semi deliveries a week and those deliveries would be at 10:00 a.m. when the store opens for the day. The volume of traffic in general is very low volume. He suggested t}aat they would post the hours of deliveries at the site. R. Koeth moved to table Carpet & Tile Liquidators of 28597 Lorain Road with the following recommendations: 1). TYne proposal will go before the Architectural Review Board for their recommendations. 2). Applicant is to show two additional landbank spaces. 3). A photometric plan and light cut sheets ara to be submitted. 4). An irrigation system is to be shown on the new landscaping plans submitted. 5). The tree survey as to be submitted in time for the Architectural Review Board meeting. 6). Applicant is to comply with all engineering standards. 7). Access drive is to be 24-feet wide to accommodate a two lane drive. 8). The si#e will only require one access drive. 9). The radius of the drive is to be 25- feet per city codes. 10). Tlie new landscape plari is to show the required brick pavers. 11). Determination of how to screen the loading dock area as well as screening along the rear property is to be determined by the Architectural Review Board once the tree survey is submitted for their meeting. 12). The City Forester is to receive a copy of the tree survey and submit his recommendations for the site. 13). The Architectural Review Board is to look at the east side of the site and make recommendations for landscaping. T. Hreha seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. Note: The clerk advised everyone present the time and date of the Architectural Review Board meeting and indicated that there would be no notices sent out. VI. COMNdIITTEE 1tEPORTS 199[aster 1'lan Report I)iscussion: Ms. Wenger reviewed that there was a special Planning Commission meeting held on March 10, 2005, at which time the Commissioners' received the proposed Master Plan updates. It's been six weeks since the updates were submitted. She welcomed any questions or recommendations the commissioners may have and encouraged comments fy'om Master Plan Committee members and residents. She requested Planning Commission forward the Master Plan to City Council, with a recommendation to approve as presented or to approve as amended vvith any proposed changes. Once Council approves the document, the Planning Commission and Planning Department would be able to move forward with the implementation of the Plan. Mr. Koeth voiced that Ms. Wenger did a very good job iri her task of updating the master plan and making sure that the city is moving in a positive direction. He lomks forward ta the plan being submitted to Council for adoption. Ms. Wenger advised that text in the document would not change however some of the graphics would be updated. Mr. Koeth questioned how much the consultant contributed to the update. Ms. Wenger voiced that she was somewhat disappointed im the overall performance of the consixltants due to their company experiencing many personal changes so there was not consistency in representation. Overall 11