09/09/2004 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r, Road if they do not allow the curb cut. They would also rather see the emergency exist to the west side of the site if iieed be. The residents would like to encourage the tenants to work with Carnegie Management to allow an emergency exit. Mrs. Diver voiced that she did not want to see access along Columbia Road. Slie voiced that the owners of the land were advised in 1988 that ODOT would only allow one curb cut onto Brookpark Road. ODOT also reiterated that only one curb cut would be allowed when Wal Mart was constructed. She questioned if other large developments had only one access that have had fires. The fire chief indicated that they would get their vehicles onto the site, their priority woizld be getting people off the site. Mr. Peffer a neighbor believed that a paved access on Columbia Road would turn into a skate park at night which would be a safety issue in itself. Ms. Wenger advised .Planning Commission that they could not order an abutting neighbor to grant access to the applicants, but could encourage them to work with the applicants. Mr. 0'Malley advised that Council had called a special meeting for Tuesday, September 14, 2004 to address the curreiit changes. He believed that the Planning Commission was contemplating the approval of a single drive waiving the requirements of two drives under chapter 1161.10 and not approving the emergency road access along Columbia Road. Furthermore, that a second emergency access point would be provided in the future but Planning Commission is taking that on faith. He reminded Planning Commission that there were traffic issues when the access point to the west (Great Northern Blvd) of the site was brought up in the original proposal and advised that those issues could surface again. J. Lasko this motion is conditioned upon the ultimate denial of the Ohio Department of Transportation of the second ingress and egress point at the eastern end of the property in the proximity of builciing A as shown on the current plans. The following items will be provided by in this motion; 1). The waiver of the two driveway requirements such that a single ingress and egress point will be provided at the existing traffic light which currently serves Wal Mart to the south, and will also provide access to this parcel to the north. 2). Planning Commission does not approve the proposed as indicated on the current drawing an 18-foot wide emergency access driveway over the parcel to Columbia Road. The developer will provide a concrete pad or similar type of mnterial tlaat will meet the Planning I)irectors approval in the general proximity of the originally p?•oposed second access point by building A. With the additional recommendation that O.D.O.T. would perhaps allow that type of material to be eztended over into what would otherwise be the berm of the limited access highway. Not requiring a second curb cut but allowing that material to go across the property line and into the berm area. 3). Planning Commission request that the developer of this parcel work in conjunction with the owner of the pae-cel to the west at the western end of their property in the proximity of biiilding D to work with the owner of the property foc potential common use and mutual beneft of each land owner for tlieir respective parcels of property. In providing ingress and egress to both parcels. W. Spalding seconded the motion, roll call on the motion; W. Spalding, S Hoff-Smith, C. Allan, M. Yager, R. Koeth, and T. Hreha, "Yes". Mr. Hreha commented that Planning Commission would like the Plamung Director and Fire Chief to write new letters far the applicants and request that Council write a resolution on behalf of the applicants. J. Lasko "no". Mr. Lasko staxed that he does not think it is the ambit of the Planning Commission to require or even suggest that an independent private land owner llave conditions in any way shape or form be placed upon it to have to work for the benef'it of an independent third party. He does not believe that that is the providence or the provisions of the Planning Cominission to be suggesting one private landowner has to do something or even consider doing sometlung for the benefit of yet another private landowner. He believes that a single point of access in and out of tlus parcel is going to come back to haunt both the developer and the City especially at the times of high volume uses for example the winter Holiday period. VI. NEW BUSINESS