My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01/09/2001 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
2001
>
2001 Planning Commission
>
01/09/2001 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:48:44 PM
Creation date
1/28/2019 5:19:22 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
2001
Board Name
Planning Commission
Document Name
Minutes
Date
1/9/2001
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
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
<br />Chainnan Tallon called all interested parties forward to review their proposal. Mr. Steven Schiell, the <br />architect came forward to represent the applicant. He commented that the owner Mr. Schartman would <br />like to store his personal cars in the building he purchased to warehouse parts used at his dealership. <br />The building is about 10,000 square feet of which 1,000 square feet will house the office and <br />6,000square feet will store parts. The remaining 3,000 square feet the owner would like to use to store <br />his antique cars. The cars are his personal collection and will not be used as a show room it will only <br />be used for storage. Mr. Tallon questioned the law department as to why storing automobiles was not <br />allowed. Mr. Dubelko indicated that the building department made a deternunation that storage of <br />automobiles did not fit within the scope of storage provisions under the industrial district. Mr. <br />Rymarczyk com.inented that according to the current zoning code storage of personal car collections it <br />is not an approved use. Storage of any vehicle is prohibited in an industrial district. Mr. Koeth <br />believed that the reason you could not store cars/vehicles was due to the fuel in the cars. Mr. Dubelko <br />read from chapter 1145.03 (e) of the Plaiuiing and zoiung code. Mr. Tallon reviewed that the <br />Plamiing Commission would be the only board to deternune similar use the proposal will not need to go <br />before the Board of Zoning Appeals. The chairman commented tat the board was concerned that if the <br />similar use was granted anything could be stored in the building. Mr. Schiell suggested setting a limit <br />to the number of cars that could be placed in the building. Mr. Dubelko indicated that the board could <br />lunit the number of cars to be stored. Mr. Asseff questioned if auto trucks and trailers could be stored <br />in a build'ulg. Mr. Ryinarczyk indicated that they would be allowed auto trucks or trailers to be stored <br />within the building. <br />R. Tallon motioned to approve Ed Schartman of 6770 Industrial Parkway his proposal which consists <br />of detennination of similar use of storing auto's, trucks azid trailers inside the building as a like and <br />sinular use. The motion was seconded by C. Allan and Unanimously approved. Motion Carried. <br />5. McCormick Place, Sprintcom, Inc.: 23300Lorain Road: <br />Proposal consists of a 120-foot telecommunication monopole with a 10' X 11' base station equipment. <br />Note: A use variance will be required. If approved several variances will also be required. <br />Chainnan Tallon called all interested parties forward to review their proposal. Mr. Richards; with <br />SprintCom came forward to review the proposal. SprintCom is proposing a 120'-momopole with a <br />cabinet at the base of the pole. A 20 x 45-foot piece of land is being leased. The complex will be <br />shielded by a 7-foot board on board fence as well as a 5-foot earth mound. The McCornuck place was <br />picked as it was the highest commercial area and the bufferuig was already in place. Mr. Tallon <br />questioned what variances would be required. Mr. Richards reviewed that they would need a use <br />variance, as the overlay area is in the southwest, which is to far for them to use. A setback variances is <br />also required. Mr. Dubelko remarked that he wanted to address the overlay districts. The applicant <br />indicated that there is no other overlay area to place the tower, which is not true. There is a second <br />area, which goes along I-480, aud they can be on city owned property and Great Northern Mall area. <br />There is currently a monopole at Claque Park, wluch is less then a mile from this site. It is a gross <br />misstatement from the applicant when he said this was the only site that was available. Mr. Richards <br />indicated that those were not listed in the ordina.nce. Mr. Dubelko indicated that that was only the first <br />ordinance, which was expanded upon. Mr. Koeth questioned Mr. Richards why they needed to be <br />located in the area they were choosing and not using the existing pole in the area. Mr. Richards showed <br />the board members color-coded inaps of North Olmsted. Lorain road and Dover road have some dead <br />zones shown in white, red spots are not good yellow area is better and green spots are the best zones. <br />The green areas are along I-480, Columbia road and Center Ridge road. Mr. Tallon questioned when <br />the sites where installed. Mr. Richards indicated that all were set up in 1998 and as the users increases <br />the serviceable area decreases. Mr. Tallon suggested the applicants showed a lack of foresight not
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.