07/22/1986 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

` PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 22, 1986 PAGE 2 drive north would serve any purpose. City Engineer Schaller advised that there was no signal on the north side of the existing traffic light and since the light will be for the developers advantage, the cost should be born by him (the City assumes the maintenance). He suggested traffie activated signalization. Mr. Morgan questioned this since the.,Commission is requiring the drive at this location. Chairman Burns read a letter from the Reverend L. Gordon Blasius, pastor of the John Knox United Presbyterian Church (see attached) and another from Ross E. Eyer, President .of the Board of Trustee's (see attached). Mr. John Schurr, a ruling elder of the church, gave a brief history of the property involved: property was purchased by Rocco and Hennie Puzzitiello in 1964 for $33,000; later, after the centerline was journalized in the mid-seventies and after Mr. Puzzitiello requested a building permit from the City, the State of Ohio purchased a strip of land ap.proximately 15' by 400' for the roadway at the cost of $22,000., they also granted $41,000 for damages to the balance of the property and paid $6,000 for a temporary easement to be used during the construction, making a total of $69,000 compensation. It is also pos- sible that another 25 feet of land may be needed for a turning point, and this, t.oo, could cost the taxpayers money. He concluded that since the developer has been paid damages, and taking into consideration the traffic problems previously discussed,' that no variance should be granted. Mr. Nagy, also representing the church, stated that the Board of Zoning Appeals granted a set back variance predicated on the approval of the Planning Commission and the Safety Department, thus shifting the responsibility of granting the variance to the Commission, and he maintained that there is no variance because there is no approval. He quoted four of the points mentioned in the Oliio Jurisprudence regarding variances whicfi would be applicable in this -case and concluded that the Commission should not grant a variance on these points. Councilman Tallon asked the Commission to consider the following points: activating the north side of the light would rob time from the operating lights (probably from the Lorain Road side); variance should have been granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals, not predicated on Planning Commission's approval; property was paid for and it should cpnform to the setbacks required. Councilman Lackey':s.tated that the temporary access during construction period should be considered at this time. Mrs. Davis, a member of the church, asked that the integrity of the use of the land be maintained by not.granting zoning changes and variances, and that granting a variance for a road prior to its develop- ment is setting a pr.ecedent; In reference to the variance, Assistant Law Director Dubelko advised that the variance had been granted on the condi- tion that the developer had agreed to be bound by any reasonable condi.tions. Mr._Nagy and Councilman'Woerpel disagreed witfi this cvntention maintaining. that no variance has been granted until the Planning Commission approves. Attorney'Moss reminded the Commission that because of inflation this pro- perty is more valuab le than when the compensation was made. Mr.. Gorris questioned if the Board of Zoning Appeals could reconsider this variance on the basis that they did not have all the facts pertinent to the com- pensation received. Mr. Dubelko stated that the general subject was discussed, and it is to be presumed that the Board granted the variance being aware of all the material facts. In reference to Captain Krynak's comments, City Engineer Schaller stated that.it was his responsibility to determine what modifications to the light would be needed, and this would be determined after the detailed plans were available. A member of the audience suggested that there should be some clarification of wh at the