09/13/2005 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

report. 2). Landbanked parking is to be shown on plans to eliminate the need for parking variances. 3). Plans are to show internal footprint of the rear building as to the internal traffic. 4). Plans are to show two points of egress to the building. 5). Storm water detention calculations are to be submitted to the Engineering Department if and when development plans are submitted. 6). Submit plans showing existing abutting lots to east and west of site depicting the location of all buildings on each lot. 'n. Accurate distances and measurements are to be shown on site plan. R. Bohlmann seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. 3. Emerald Village (Catholic Charities); 30344 Lorain Road: (WRD 3) Proposal consists of construction of a Senior Housing development. Ms. Wenger reviewed that the proposal consisted of a new senior housing development on a site zoned for senior residence. Review of the plans dated September 9, 2005 by the Building Department disclosed that some information was missing, which prevented an accurate review for zoning compliance. Furthermore, earlier in the day she received a communication from the Cleveland Metro Parks offering their comments on the proposal. They indicated that there are deed restrictions on a portion of the applicant's site that may impact the proposed development. While the City does not enforce deed restrictions between private property owners, it may ultimately have an impact on the site plan. She recommended the Commission forward the proposal to the ARB for design review. Given the concerns still needing to be addressed, she recommended the applicant work with City staff to provide more detailed plans for determining zoning compliance and other issues before returning to the Planning Commission. Mr. Rymarczyk indicated that the lot size was not depicted on the site plans nor were the number of units therefore, density could not be determined. The footprints of the one and two bedroom units do not show any dimensions, therefore it could not be determined if the sizes meet code. Although the number of parking spaces are not shown it looks to be 104 spaces and code requires 1-per unit + 1-per employee so a parking variance for number of spaces would be required. The photometric plans are not carried out to a zero foot-candle reading on a 10-foot grid nor a cut sheet of the exterior lighting and degree of cutoff. If there is going to be signs on the site none are shown on current plans. Until those items are received the Building Department can not determine what variances may be needed. Mr. Durbin indicated that there are eight items that need to be addressed by the applicants: 1). The storm water detention system shown goes onto an adj acent property under a separate owner. An easement would be required from the adjacent owner. If the ditch is on the applicants own property the detention system could outlet to it instead. 2). Storm water calculations were not provided but it appears that the proposed detention basin size is too small to conform to city requirements. 3). Ohio EPA requirements pertaining to stortn water quality need to be addressed since the site is larger than 5 acres. A permanent water quality structure will need to be installed on the site. 4). The proposed telephone and electric lines must be underground per 929.04 of the codified ordinances. 5). A brickscape is required in the Lorain Road tree lawn in accordance to city codes. 6). City ordinances require that the maximum drive width of a two-lane drive be 24- feet, however plans shows 25-feet. 7). Ordinances also requires the radius of the drive apron to be 25-feet minimum and current plans show 10-feet for the drive near the west property line. 8). The west drive needs to be moved east so that the apron does not cross the property line. There 7