11/12/2002 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Deichmann said with regard to the existing Clague and Lorain traffic signal, the city is very well aware that there is a problem with the controller. He believes they isolated it and the contractor should be making the repair shortly. He said with respect to traffic volumes, he would appreciate it if the developer would submit a report on the anticipated volumes for the restaurant. The engineering department can take a look at that report. It is a congested intersection. He said he wishes they could have done more to improve the traffic flow but they built according to the budget they had. Mr. O'Malley said he believes the building department has already confirmed the fact that this site is properly zoned and this is a permitted use. He would caution the Planning Commission that the developer as a property owner or having an option on this property has certain constitutional rights. It permits this use and they can proceed. He would also caution the board with respect to the limit to which the city can exact remedies from a developer for off- site conditions. For example, a down stream ditch that is taxed or existing traffic conditions on these arteries. They exist in this state. He compares it to "they are going to throw additional fish into a crowded stream." Or, if you follow the applicant's traffic counts, they would suggest they are going to take a few cars off the road at these peak times. The Planning Commission ought to follow through with the engineer's suggestion that the developer put on the traffic evidence. He would also steer them to the section of the code, Chapter 1126, regarding the Planning Commission's function to explore the significant adverse impacts. And all of these things are significant adverse impacts and the board needs to identify them. This is an applicant that is seeking variances and the Board of Zoning Appeals will probably address those. However, the Board of Zoning Appeals is looking at a different standard. Tlus body has a broader view, more of a planning view, and it is for this body to invite the developer to make suggestions as to how it might reduce the affect of some of these things. The Board of Zoning Appeals will not generally demand or suggest or require changes in the development plan to address these impacts. They will either grant or deny the variance requests based upon the standards that they employ. It is for this body to suggest to the applicant that should they want to proceed, it might behoove them to make offers or do things with their development plan to try to reduce some of these impacts. That is for them to suggest to the board. He would caution to the board to the lengths that it would go to demand things of them. From a planning standpoint it is convenient for the developer to come before the board with CVS; it sounds like it was one site at the time, they made curb cuts and leave an out parcel then segregate that parcel and have reciprocal easements and shared drives. But at the same time, that works from a coordination of traffic flow on the one hand, to the benefit of the developer and the city, but on the other hand it can cause as many problems as it offers to solve. For example, if you were just dealing with this site by itself, as a separate parcel, you wouldn't have to be faced with access to Lorain, 2 instead of 1 driveways off Clague. But as it is, they come before you having already been attached to CVS but now separated from CVS but for these easements. If they start out as part of CVS and now they separate themselves from CVS, they can't have it both ways. If there are issues on the CVS parcel, that are part of the problem, they might offer solutions, in terms of overall traffic circulation. Mr. Spalding agreed that the traffic flow into and out of the parcel is tied in with CVS and to have all these entrances and exits, that would be 3 entrances/exits off of Clague, it would create a mess. At the very least, we have to have a traffic engineering study to make sure the entrances and exits are all tied together. Mr. Sturgeon, the resident of Clague, said again that there are to be no trucks on Clague. He said perhaps there was an easement for commercial trucks to come down Clague at some point. Mr. O'Malley asked to address that issue. He said there may be a"no truck" street but the law allows for trucks to make a detour onto a residential street to make a delivery. He mentioned furniture companies making deliveries. They are required to stay on a state route and make no greater detour than permitted to accomplish the delivery. The police department routinely sits on Clague near 1480 and tickets trucks that try to come down Clague. He said Clague is not to be used as a cut through. He added it is an example of an off site traffic condition and the developer can be creative to address the problems that may exist. NOTE: The remainder of the minutes are from the clerk's notes, as the fourth tape did not operate properly. He said the farther away from the site, the less authority they may have, but ingress and egress from the site is an issue. Mr. Frindt, a Clague Road resident, mentioned the apron. There was further discussion about the apron. Mr. Frindt indicated the amount of cars and direction in which they are going, along with the light changing issue, creates a back up on Clague. It is the location and not the numbers. Mr. Rymarczyk mentioned the applicant is below 55 at the property line with regard to the speakers. There was a brief discussion about the noise levels. R. Koeth made a motion to table the proposal. He indicated the proposal will be sent to the engineer for a traffic study and the developer will submit his study for comparison. Mr. Koeth informed the resident that the board appreciates their concerns and it will be duly noted in the placement of any establishment. The motion was seconded by K. 0'Rourke and unanimously approved. Proposal Tabled. Mr. 0'Malley recommended that the developer bare the responsibility and cost of traffic analysis and submit the findings to the engineer. He indicated the Planning Commission can take the same approach with the drainage and 16