06/23/2010 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

? The commission reviewed the conditional use permit requirements individually and found that there would be no adverse impacts created or expanded due to the addition; therefore they had no objections to recommending the conditional use permit. Mr. Lasko moved, seconded by Mr. Bohlmann, to recommend City Council issue a conditional use permit to CMS10-11 John Knox I'resbyterian Church of 25200 Lorlin Road which was unanimously approved 5-0. CMS10-16 N O Town Center; 25102 Brookpark Rd: Representative: Rodericlc Saylor, GRW Engineers, Inc. CMS10-17 Chiclc-Fil-A Inc ; 4779 Great Northern Blvd: Mr. Laslco said the two proposals would be discussed together. Ms. Wenger said the request is to constnict a driveway connection between the Chiclc-fil-A property and the North Olmsted Town Center development. As the project impacts two separate parcels under different ownership, both property owners were required to submit applications. However, it would follow that approval of one should be granted in conjunction with approval of the other. Each property owner will lose parlcing spaces Carnegie two and Chick-File-A three to create the access drive however they will create three spaces along the northwest corner of their site which is now a drive. The bollards shown on the plan were installed by the northern property owner to bloclc cross access and are not a part of this proposal. The applicants have submitted a copy of their access easement agreement. Mr. Mitchell said the plans show the bollards are on the applicanYs property which should be clarified and the plans are not consistent as one sheet shows signage and another does not and all plans need to be consistent. The northwest parlcing spaces need to be accurately sized to code and the demolition plan shows the entire east fence being removed and questioned if any of the fence would be reinstalled. Mr. O'Malley advised the commission that it was within their authority to require a traffic study for the project if they so chose. He also noted that the bollards were installed without a pennit and were ordered to be removed however they remain. Ms. Wenger said that there had Ueen a traffic study conducted once and did not feel it was warranted to require an additional study. Mr. Saylor said sign SE shown on page G2.0 is a carry over which will be removed. Note 26 references the site light moved and note 23 & 24 are signs to be installed. Ms. Wenger said if installed variances are required. Mr. Laslco said if there are painted arrows on the paveinent signs are not warranted. Mr. Mitchell said if the light pole is being moved a new photometric plan is required. Mr. Saylor said the existing section of fence will not be disturbed by the new construction. The bollards on the plan were shown for existing condition; it is uiilcnown which property they are on. Mr. Laslco said when extending the grass island west if it is found that the bollards are in fact on the Chiclc-Fil-A property then they are to Ue removed. Mr. O'Malley advised against conditioning approval upon the bolla.rds being removed however the commission could recoininend Chiclc-Fil-A remove the bollards if it is found that they are on their property. Mrs. Meredith said she did not thinlc the applicant should bear the cost to remove the bollards as they did not install them regardless if they are on their property or not. Mr. Rerlco said it would