Laserfiche WebLink
? trespassing. Mr. Petryshin believed that if the applicants were truly concerned about being a <br />good neighbor, then they would have approached the apartment and condo owners to make sure <br />all issues were worked out ahead of time. He feels that the location is small and could be <br />developed with something other than a car wash. The apartments and condos share a driveway <br />which has problems and they believe that this use would adversely impact the problem. The <br />applicants talk about other sites but haven't addressed the current location. <br />J. Lasko moved to table North Olmsted Laser Carwash of 25054 Lorain Road until <br />accurate plans are submitted which shows proper property lines and accurately depict all <br />plants proposed and existing landscaping. The commission would like the opinion from the <br />forester regarding existing landscaping and if a brick wall would adversely impact the <br />existing northern trees. The Police and Fire Chiefs are to be asked their opinions as it <br />relates to egress and site circulation. R. Bohlmann seconded the motion which wais <br />unanimously approved. Mr. Bohlmann suggested the owner consider a single wash bay to <br />ensure proper traffic circulation. <br />V. COMMUNICATIONS: <br />Overview of January 28th commission training. <br />Ms. Wenger reviewed that breakfast would be served at 8:45 am in the Heritage room. The <br />Board of Zoning Appeals would be joining the commission as well as administrative personnel <br />and City Council members. She briefly discussed the 2006 Ohio Planning Conference Zoning <br />Workshop coming up in April and said she would pass along more information at a later date. <br />Ordinance No. 2006-7 <br />An ordinance amending section 1126.03 of the zoning code in order to add storm and sanitary <br />sewer certification requirements to the development plan submittal requirements for commercial <br />developers. <br />Ms. Wenger believed that the provision belonged under storm water management section not <br />planning and zoning codes. Mr. O'Malley advised that the wording could be placed in both <br />sections. The concern is that is the city within their rights to require the applicant to make sure <br />their system and neighboring system will work prior to approval. Mr. Lasko believed that the <br />reading of the ordinance states that the applicant would have to certify that the existing system in <br />fact works. Ms. Becker questioned how the engineering deparhnent would go about ensuring a <br />system being tied into worlcs. Mr. Yager believed that it was beyond the commission's or city's <br />scope to state an engineer must certify an existing system will work. Mr. Lasko believed that the <br />applicants would be asked to incur additional expenses by requiring engineering plans at the time <br />of submittal. <br />Mr. Gareau, the sponsor of the legislation, indicated that currently the Commission and Council <br />review stormwater plans. It was not his intent to add costs up front. However, if an engineer <br />plans to incorporate any existing storm water system, they should certify that the connecting or <br />existing system in fact works. He agrees with Ms. Wenger that the matter might not belong in <br />the Zoning Code. He suggested that perhaps the commission may want to table the issue. l-le <br />would address some of the issues brought up by the commission. Mr. Yager suggested that he is <br />all for proactive issues but not sure this issue should be with them. Mr. O'Malley advised that: if <br />the commission had subcommittees they could place it in a committee. <br />7