02/08/1994 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

?. ? • ? , lives next door, advised that all of..the property owners in the neighborhood are opposed to this structure. He has measured this lot from his lot to the sidewalk and it is 63 feet wide which is a.bowling lane lot and not large enough. He also questioned the drainage problems because there is an open ditch across the lot. He submitted a petition from the neighbors stating that they are opposed to the proposal. Mr. Dillon, representing Mr. Polcha, his father-in-law, advised that Mr. Polcha also objected to this size building on that lot, but is more concerned about the parking lot and traffic since the intersection has seri:ous traffic problem at this time and adding 40 cars would increase that. He also noted water problems on the lot. Mra Orlowski stated that, when he was on the site at about 4:30 p.m., some of the apartment residents parked on the south side of Delmer which would also restrict traffico Regarding the drainage, City Engineer Deichmann advised that there was a 58 by 36 inch culvert coming in from Delmer, but only a 24 inch going out. I-t would be rather expensive to comply with the storm water retention requirements with those restraints. The applicant should be asaare that it would be a difficult engineering problem and expensive to solve. Mr. Gorris clarified that this would require large tanks to retain the water and they are very expensive. Mr. :Deichmarm stated that it would not only be expensive, but even if they did comply with all regulations, they could still have a flooded parking lot. rlr. Wooten stated that Assistant City Engineer McDermott had advised that they would need a 1,000 cubic foot vessel which would retain the water for 15 minutes. Mr. Deichmann clarified that since there was a smaller pipe going out of the property the lot could still flood. Again, Mr. Gorris reiterated that, if they still wanted to pursue this development, they would need architectural drawings to be referred to the B.Z.A. and even if they get the variances, the Commission could still deny the conditional use permit. Mr. Tallon stated tYiat the best advice would be to find another site since the Commission would not want them to invest a lot of time and money into this and then have it denied. Mr. Thomas suggested that this could be tabled until he cotild talk with the congregation. A member of the congregation, speaking from the audience, advised that they saould need a vote in order to void the contract. It was clarified that the developer had decided not to seek any variances and wishes to have Planning Commission vote on the proposal based on the present application. In order to provide the developer some direction and based on the plans submitted tonight, J. Thomas moved that for the Christian Meeting Corporation, at the northwest corner of Clague Road and Delmere Drive, to approve the intention of the conditional use of this property for a chapel and parking lot subject to the developer pursuing all appropriate variances for the property. Mr. Dubelko advised that it would be better just to make a motion to approve. J. Thomas withdrew his motion. J. Thomas moved to approve the conditional use of this property for the Christian Meeting Corporation, at the northwest corner of Clague Road and Delmere Drive, to erect a chapel on this property, seconded by B. Gorris. Roll call on motion: Thomas, Gorris, Orlojaski, 0'Rourke and Tallon, no. Mrs. Alston, abstained. Motion is denied. VI. NE6d DEVELOPMIIVTS AND SUBDIVISIONS: Kovacik Property Split and Assembly Plat. The proposal is to assemble and re-align permanen 22-30, located on the east side of Clague Road within, the Limited Access right of way of I-480. entirely, and the proposal conforms to zoning co area. t parcel nos. 237-22-19 and 237- to the north of, and partially Zoning is "C" Residence single de requirements for frontage and 6