09/13/2005 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Farrell uelieved that the flow of traffic and layout of parking was discussed with the Building Commissioner who he said indicated that parking layout and flow of traffic not a critical issue. He suggested his client would comply with whatever the Architectural Review Board requested regarding landscaping and they would irrigate the site to code. Mr. Koeth said he felt that the applicants were testing the Commission's integrity by not submitting adequate plans which is required of every applicant. The Commission could not be expected to make a ruling on a development plan without being provided proper development plans. Mr. Yager said that the Commission has had many developers before them who have worked hard to submit plans in time making sure they accurately reflected what each board and commission had requested so good decisions could be made. Mr. Halleen has not submitted any plans since May 20, 2005 and he received final rulings on his variances August 4, 2005, which left ample time to make the changes and submit plans. Mr. Farrell said his client did not want to waste money revising plans if the Commission was not going to give his client final approval because he does not want to remove an existing curb-cut along Dewey Road. His client is going to remove three of the four curb-cuts on the parcel, two along Lorain Road and one along Dewey Road. Mr. Farrell questioned if the curb-cut along Dewey road was going to be fatal to his client's development plans. Mr. Yager inquired if the applicant was going to comply with the Board of Zoning Appeals contingency to remove the curb-cut along Dewey Road. Mr. Farrell stated that his client is withdrawing the variance request for setback along Dewey Road as he does not want to remove the curb-cut. Mr. O'Malley advised that the applicant says he would now comply to the 20-foot setback requirement as he does not want to remove the curb-cut however it is not quite that simple. The Planning Commission needs to look at the ramifications of a curb-cut along Dewey Road and its relationship to the possible adverse impact on the existing neighborhood. It is within the Commission's rights to request each of the safety forces and the Engineering Department submit a report as well as a traffic study of the area. Mr. Koeth questioned the size and location of the exiting curb-cut and was advised that the applicants were not sure of the size. Mr. Farrell indicated that the northern existing curb-cut would remain and would be used by clients as well as patrons. There would be a gate at the entrance to protect the lot after hours. Mr. Lasko voiced that he thought the commission should request the applicant perform a traffic study as it relates to the curb-cut along Dewey and to request the safety forces review the plans as well. Mr. O'Malley suggested the City Engineer could provide the applicants with an outline detailing the specifications of the traffic study required. He also suggested that the commission could also request the Law Department conduct a study to see whether or not the applicant in this circumstances has a constitutional right to a curb cut along Dewey or Lorain Road. Mr. Farrell requested that the commission allow his client to be tabled so they could meet with the clients architect and decide whether or not they even whish to proceed with the proposal. Mr. Pacsuta an abutting neighbor voiced the following concerns: 1). Curb-cuts on Dewey road as he is concerned for the safety of the neighborhood children. There have already been incidents which have accrued involving neighborhood children almost being hurt. He believes there are enough traffic problems on the street as residents get backed up just trying to get onto Lorain Road during morning and evening rush-hour. 2). The patrons using Dewey road to turnaround after missing their drive have been confrontational and verbally abusive when he has addressed them about their speed. He knows the cars are going to the dealerships as he has followed them 3