Laserfiche WebLink
directions or property line definition. Lengthy discussion regarding the poor photometric plan took <br />place between board members and applicants. <br />Audiences comments: <br />Mr. Pacsuta from Dewey Road voiced that the mounding is 6-foot high with a 6-foot fence atop <br />that. With the additional buildings, being removed and lots being consolidated there will be more <br />noise, lights, and pollution. He wants to make sure what was approved along Dewey is completed <br />and would like to see the fence height raised to an 8-foot height. There is more traffic on their street <br />and quite a few cars using his driveway as a turn-a-round. Lengthy discussion took place regarding <br />the landscaping, mound and fencing along Dewey Road between board members and applicants. <br />10'Ir. Hreha believes that if Council wants Mr. Beebe's buffer to match the buffer along Dewey Road <br />then the applicant should have a 6-foot mound with a 6-foot vinyl fence atop that. Mr. Pacsuta <br />requested that the mounds be increased in height by 2-feet and then place the 6-foot vinyl fence atop <br />that if the two buildings are removed. <br />Further concerns of board members: <br />Mr. Spalding questioned why the mound was not continued along Dewy Road past the apron that is <br />supposed to be removed. Mr. Farrell indicated that there would be a curb at that point. The reason <br />the traffic is using Dewey Road as a turn-a-round is because KIA was not allowed the entrance <br />apron on Dewey Road as was requested. The residents cannot have it both ways, they are trying to <br />make this esthetically pleasing as possible and what we have proposed is an improvement to the site <br />and raised the property values enormously. Mr. Lasko remarked that in his personal perception as a <br />North Olmsted resident the fact is this owner has been dragging his feet in terms of getting this dam <br />work done! If the mounding were already in place, the landscaping/irrigation done and the fences <br />were up, then perhaps they would not be having this discussion tonight. Mr. Farrell suggested the <br />reason was due to his client trying to purchase residential properties to buffer the residents and make <br />them and this board happy. They have purchased the property on the corner of Porter and Lorain to <br />make this area look nicer and this business run more efficiently and to increase the esthetical value <br />of this entire City. Mr. I,asko questioned if the applicant was threatening that unless or until they <br />get approval of the corner property (Porter and Lorain) they are going to hold up the completion of <br />the plans that were approved months ago, regarding the issue of the buffering along Dewey Road. <br />li'Ir. Farrell suggested the reason the work was not complete along Dewey was due to inclement <br />weather. Mr. Lasko voiced that the weather was fine until the first or second week in May. He <br />questioned how fast or quickly could the landscaping and fencing along Dewey Road be put in <br />following the plans that were approved last fall. Mr. Farrell indicated that they have requested it be <br />in by the end of August. Mr. Lasko questioned why it would take until the end of August to <br />complete the work. Mr. Farre? commented that it was because they have all the additional plans <br />and landscaping to do. 1bIr. Lasko reiterated that the work still needing to be finished along Dewey <br />has nothing to do with the work proposed for Porter and Lorain. Mr. Farrell suggested that work of <br />this nature should not be piece meal together. 1VIr. Lasko reminded Mr. Farrell that he just implied <br />that hey did not know they were going to have these other properties and you wanted to proceed with <br />the original proposal. Mr. Farrell suggested that it has always been in the works and negotiations. <br />Mr. Spalding indicated that the additional parcels have never been part of any other proposal. The <br />applicants are coming in with a new proposal without completing the first one. Mr. Farrell <br />suggested the majority of the mounding is competed the landscaping he does not know how long it <br />will take. <br />Law Department comments: <br />Mr. O'Malley advised the Commission to try and appease some of the other people on the docket. <br />There was a motion to table, some discussion to try to give the developer some since of were the <br />Planning Commission stands, and residents need a chance to be heard without necessarily resolving <br />their issues. A plan is before the commission that will have to be tabled, as it needs to go before <br />6