My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02/13/2001 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
2001
>
2001 Planning Commission
>
02/13/2001 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:48:43 PM
Creation date
1/28/2019 5:18:44 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
2001
Board Name
Planning Commission
Document Name
Minutes
Date
2/13/2001
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
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
to screen people on Bailey Rd. and that the lot next door has a floating dumpster that they will <br />enclose. Parking on the plat is identical to what is behind Litehouse right now. They plan on <br />installing curbing, which will show on engineering's drawings. They will try to incorporate <br />some landscaping on the side of the building. Mr. Koeth questioned if they would keep the <br />same cut into the parking lot from Lorain Rd. Mr. Schill replied that they are going to <br />eliminate that cut and place it on Bailey Rd. He showed a picture of the existing cut on Bailey <br />Rd. to clarify to the board that there would now be two cuts on Bailey. Mr. Koeth questioned <br />the loading zone. Mr. Schill commented that they do not have a loading zone because of the <br />shallowness of the lot. Mr. Koeth then questioned how they get merchandise in the store. <br />Mr. Goold replied they come from Lorain Rd., back the semi in, tuck it around back of the <br />building, and then unload from there. Mr. Koeth commented that he was concerned that they <br />are going to drive down Bailey with that semi and go in the back way to unload. Mr. Goold <br />replied that is what they would like to do. Mr. Koeth questioned if the basement was to be <br />extended with the rest of the building. Mr. Goold replied yes. Mr. Koeth questioned if the <br />basement was just used for storage. Mr. Goold replied yes. Mr. Conway questioned how the <br />parking actually is today. Mr. Goold replied that it is fine, except for the Christmas season <br />there are about two weekends that the employees park on the side street just to make sure the <br />costumers have enough parking. Mr. Hreha questioned when the deliveries are. Mr. Goo1d <br />replied it varies, but usually between 11 a.m. and 2 p.m. Mr. Conway commented that they <br />are optimizing their parking by having 90 degree parking spaces across the front of Lorain <br />Rd., but in reality we should see some diagonal parking in there. An in one side, out the other <br />type of situation so it is easier for people to park. Mr. Koeth questioned the loading zone <br />variance. Mr. Conway replied that they could either put in a loading zone and require more <br />parking variance, or for an hour or two a week there's going to be a truck blocking some <br />parking. Mr. Koeth questioned if the deliveries ever happen on weekends. Mr. Goold replied <br />that it does come on Saturdays probably 15 to 20 weeks out of the year. Mr. Koeth then <br />questioned if it is ever blocking cars. Mr. Goold commented that the truck parks around back <br />and nobody ever wants to park back there. Mr. Hreha commented that they should move this <br />on to the Board of Zoning Appeals, because when they put this building up they did it without <br />any variances. To stop them from doing this just because the City's ordinances have changed <br />would be wrong. Mr. Allan questioned if they should be starting with the variances or the lot <br />consolidation. Mr. Dubelko replied the lot consolidation is the very last thing to be done. He <br />then suggested that it is true they built the building under the old code and some of the <br />requested variances would not make sense to deny them. For example the front setback, but <br />as 1VIr. Conway eluded to earlier the side yard variance doesn't have anything to do with the <br />configuration of the original building, it is just a request to build in violation of the side yard <br />requirements. W. Spalding questioned if the existing brick building on Bailey is in violation <br />of the side yard variance. Mr. Conway commented that he thinks it is in violation. Mr. Koeth <br />questioned the man in the audience to see if he had questions or comments. Tom Mulnar, a <br />resident of 23591 David Dr., but representing the interest of the owners of 4285 Bailey Rd., <br />which is the property that butts up against the rear of the property in question here. His <br />concerns were that the flooding in the yard could get worse during and after construction and <br />also he would not like to see a semi running its motor 15 feet away from his home. He then <br />thanked the board for their time. Mr. Schill commented as far as the water goes the <br />engineering department will mandate the grading they do back there. <br />•, ,M <br />1, <br /> <br />2
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.