09/13/2005 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

clerk provided copies of the applicant's last plans submitted for discussion purposes. This creates difficulty in evaluating the proposal given a number of unknown variables including whether or not the applicant wishes to proceed with a plan in disagreement with denied variances or to what extent the applicant is willing to consider plan modifications. . Nonetheless, she recommended that the Commission consider the various elements of the plan including access, internal circulation, landscaping and buffering in relation to any adverse impacts they may identify, and propose changes to the plan that would be required to improve the plan. Mr. Durbin indicated that the Engineering Department had yet to receive any plans to review therefore they stood by their letter dated May 4, 2005, sent to the applicants stating what was required for a review. Mr. O'Malley noted that the Board of Zoning Appeals looked to address Planning Commission's concerns pertaining to traffic along Dewey Road by granting the setback variance with the condition that there was to be no curb-cuts along Dewey Road. He advised the Commission that the applicant had filed a notice of appeal in the Common Pleas Court of Appeals regarcling the denial of the use variance requested. However, that issue relates to a portion of the existing lot shown on the plan as parking area in the north east corner of the Chevy dealership. The Planner as well as the Commission voiced a number of issues regarding the proposal at past meetings, but that the applicant was not receptive to making changes. Mr. O'Malley indicated that it was not clear as to what the applicant's intent was as there had been no further plans submitted to reflect what the Commission requested or any of the changes necessary as a result of the BZA's actions. The applicant was upset that they were not placed on Planning Commissions last agenda due to revised plans not being submitted. He said that both the Planner and Building Commissioner consulted the Law Department and they were advised that if the applicant insisted on proceeding with the plans which were first filed, they must be allowed to proceed. Mr. Far-rell, the attorney for C& C Realty, indicated that they went before the Board of Zoning Appeals and had spoken to the Planner and are asking Planning Commission to address the corner lot only (Dewey & Lorain). Pertaining to the corner lot they were granted some variances as well as denied other variance requests and they are seeking Planning Commissions input of that lot only. They were granted variances for parking and setbacks along the south property line (Lorain Road). The conditional variance granted along Dewey Road, his client is choosing to withdraw and comply with the 20-foot setback requirement. The north border of the corner lot was denied a setback variance so they would comply with the 20-foot setback requirement. The intent is to demolish the existing building, irrigate the lot according to code, meet the rear and side yard (Dewy Road) setback requirements and use the south property setback (Lorain Road) variances granted, receive final approval and proceed as it pertains to the corner parcel only. Mr. Yager questioned why the applicant chose not to submit plans accurately depicting their intent and now request the Commission give final approval. Mr. Farrell suggested that they had already submitted three different sets of plans and it becomes cost prohibitive to continuously submit new plans. Mrs. Hoff-Smith read aloud from the May 24, 2005, Planning Commission minutes, whereby Mr. Koeth advised that the plans were insufficient, there should be a separate landscape plan, proposed parking layouts shown, and a photometric plan. She questioned how the applicant could ask for final approval when they have failed to submit acceptable plans. Mr. 2