My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03/10/1998 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
1998
>
1998 Planning Commission
>
03/10/1998 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:47:48 PM
Creation date
1/28/2019 3:15:58 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
1998
Board Name
Planning Commission
Document Name
Minutes
Date
3/10/1998
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
y ? .. <br />residential neighborhood. Mr. Wilson agreed to turn off the light in the sign. Mr. Asseff <br />questioned if employees would exit the building premises at around 5:30 P.M. Mr. Wilson <br />advised on rare occasion surgery is done at 3:00 in the afternoon, and with a possible three <br />hour recove .ry, some employees may leave after 6:00 P.M. He noted the building is sparsely <br />used in the evening hours. Mr. Rymarczyk announced no variances would be required. Mr. <br />Asseff questioned if ambulances would be coming in and out of the facility often. Mr. Wilson <br />advised ambulances would come in on rare occasion, however the type of surgery performed <br />is very low risk. Mr. Brennan questioned if there would be a sidewalk in front of the parking <br />zone. Mr. Wilson explained people would walk through the parking lot to get into the <br />building thereby maintaining the existing conditions. Mr. Koeth noted in the old building <br />there are bushes in front of the windows. Mr. Lbassi stated the colored rendering is meant <br />to depict the building, but there will be shrubbery in front of the building. Mrs. O'Rourke <br />stated she would like to see the shrubbery extended in front of the new building to break up <br />that wall. Mr. Rymarczyk requested a clarification on the fence location. Mr. Libassi advised <br />the intention was to run the fence all the way to the end of the lot line, but he was willing to <br />install it to meet code requirements. Mr. Brennan did not think it was a bad idea to ruu the <br />fence the entire length of the property line. Mr. Rymarczyk noted the fence should be held <br />back from the sidewalk fifteen to twenty feet for safety reasons. Mr. Brennan stated the <br />reason for his recommendation was to buffer the residents from Lorain Road, however he did <br />not intend to jeopardize anyone's safety. The meeting was opened up for audience <br />participation. Mr. Lily, residing on the north side of this fence advised his driveway runs <br />parallel with the fence line. He was concerned about the ability to see pedestrian traffic and <br />noted the plan depicts the fence runuing right up to the sidewalk. Mr. Brennan stated this <br />should be stopped ten to twelve feet from the sidewalk. It was noted there is an existing <br />fence one property south which runs to the end of the physician center property. Mr. Lily <br />stated he was told there would be room between his driveway and the fence for landscaping, <br />however recently a letter froin the developer stated that all landscaping would have to be on <br />his property. He noted there is only-a foot between the property line and his driveway, <br />therefore he would have to tear up his driveway to allow room for the landscaping. Mr. <br />Libassi advised he was concemed about the legality issue of squatters rights. He noted <br />normally fences are done six inches to a foot offthe property line but he was concerned about <br />the maintenance factor and squatters rights. Mr. Brennan explained previously the developer <br />agreed to landscape the resident's side of the fence as long as the resident would maintain the <br />landscaping. Mr. Libassi recognized that the residents driveway is awful close to the <br />property line and agreed to pull the fence in more to allow room for landscapmg along the <br />fence. He noted although the property on the other side of the fence would remain under the <br />ownership of Fairview Hospital, the resident would still have to maintain the property on the <br />north side of the fence. Mr. Lily announced he was also concerned about drainage. Mr. <br />Brennan explained the properly would have to be brought up to code with respect to <br />drainage and the city has enacted some of the toughest storm water legislation. He noted <br />before ground is broken the drainage issue will have to be addressed with the city's <br />engineering department. Mr. Wilson advised they have already been in contact with the <br />engmeering department and there will be a retention pipe undemeath the parking lot. Mr. <br />Lily had concems about the twenty foot light poles, since his property abuts this parlflng lot. <br />Mr. Wilson pomted out the light pole locations on the plan. Mr. Koeth cautioned there <br />should be zero tolerance at the lot lines. Mr. Brennan stated the lens should be flat so that it <br />does not drop below the bottom of the fixture. Mr. Calucchia advised he would like the exit <br />on Columbia Road blocked off, and noted there is shrubbery on this property which needs <br />work. Mr. Brennan explained he would like to see that happen also however this is a referral
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.