11/26/2002 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Wendy's into the picture because of that knowledge of the code. Mr. Allan agreed with Mr. Lasko and Mr. Spalding and indicated he is very familiar with the intersection in question. The traffic studies may have been in agreement in saying that traffic is not an issue, but safety certainly is. It is a nuisance to the residents and we don't need it. The list of variances is too extensive and with the acreage issue he doesn't see how it can move forward. Mr. Willse said in term of safety, they could modify the 34 ft. access width and eliminate one variance and make it an enter only drive. There would be no lights shining in any windows and it would improve the safety. He indicated the directionals are a good thing even though they need variances. Their signs serve a safety purpose. They will work with the city to address drainage concerns. Mrs. O'Rourke said she is committed to upholding the code. She was on the board when the lot first came to the Planning Commission. It would pose a major problem if the restaurant is allowed. Mr. O'Malley suggested making a recoininendation to the Board of Zoning Appeals that they approve the variances and have the proposal return to the Planning Cominission. Mr. Koeth said it would be a good plan to give the Board of Zoning Appeals the Planning Commission's thoughts on the proposal and they can then rule if they would approve or disapprove. Mr. O'Malley suggested making a motion that incorporates the variance write up and recommends that the Board of Zoning Appeals approve the variances. R. Koeth made a motion to move the proposal to the Board of Zoning Appeals for approval of the following variance requests: lot area, front setback, side yard setback for parking, aisle width at the rear, loading zone, driveway width, 2 wall signs, 7 ground signs, billboard sign, and the ground sign too close to the right of way. The motion was seconded by J. Lasko and unanimously denied. Mr. Lasko said he has no qualms with any of the variances being requested except for the lot coverage, which is why he voted no. Mr. Koeth said that given the traffic study, which is an emotional part of the development plan, and after seeing everything, he is still concerned about the size of the lot and the closeness to the residents. IV. NEW DEVELOPIVIENTS AND SUBDIVISIONS: V. COMMUNICATIONS: Note: This portion of the meeting was picked up on audio tape. Ordinance No. 99-77 An ordinance amending sections 1126.02 and 1161.12 of the North Olmsted Zoning Code relating to cominercial lighting structures, as amended. Mr. Koeth said it was the previous Planning Commission Chairman, Mr. Tallon, who worked on this ordinance. He is a lighting expert and put a lot of tiine and effort into the code. Mr. O'Malley commented that the ordinance is a result of the work of Mr. Tallon, Mr. Dubelko, and Mr. Conway. It reads fairly easily in terms of specifically requiring submission of a lighting plan, imposing guidelines for pole height and foot-candles. He would like to maintain that the I'lanning Commission would have some broader authority and is not specifically limited by any specific guidelines in the ordinance. There are some sections were the Planning Commission still maintains some discretion. He knows the Planning Commission has a history of requiring zero foot-candles at the lot line and as he reads the ordinance he would not conclude that that standard is preserved. Mr. Koeth said the Commission could still make that recommendation. Mr. O'Malley said if the code is saying a certain average for a foot-candle is acceptable for certain sites, and it dictates how high poles can be and where they are located, and an applicant complies with pole height and location, and the foot-candles are within the average outlined in the ordinance, then there may be an issue. The board wants standards but it shouldn't concede its authority. Mr. Koeth asked if they can make a request to have discretionary power to go ahead with recommendations, but still have the authority to request 5