09/13/2006 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Orlowski advised that the entire lot slopes to the rear and he agreed that a dry detention would become a collecting area for loose debris. Mr. Lasko said the photo of the site with a dry detention system in place was a much larger site and seemed to accommodate the system. The applicant's site is very small and the new development required many variances and the commission based their variance recommendations on the previously approved development plans which included an underground system and extensive landscaping plan which softens the site. He did not support the proposed changes. Other commissioners agreed with Mr. Lasko's comments. J. Lasko moved to approve the proposal for Taco Bell of 24247 Lorain Road, which consists of alterations to approved site plans to include a dry detention basin for stormwater management. R. Bohlmann seconded the motion. Roll call: J. Lasko, M. Yager, R. Eohlmann, J. Cotner, M. Mahoney, G. Malone - no; M. Meredith - yes. Motion failed. 2. North Olmsted Town Center (Parcel -E); 24642-25174 Brookpark Road: (WRD # 411 Proposal consists of landscaping alterations. Note: Proposed changes were denied under the minor change process. Mr. Bohlmann recused himself from addressing the proposal due to a conflict of interest. Ms. Wenger reported that the proposal consisted of modifications to previously approved landscape plans for the center. Landscaping which was installed did not match what was approved for the site. Applicants submitted a minor change which was denied. Ms. Wenger requested clarification as to which of the two sets of plans submitted showed what was being requested. A representative for Carnegie in the audience advised that the August 15th plans show what they would like approved and the August 25th plans show the new building footprints and what was approved. Ms. Wenger reviewed that the clerk provided a copy of the previously approved landscape plans marked pre-approved for the commissioners. Mr. Rymarczyk reported that the August 25t' plans show the correct building footprint for building C, but the landscaping does not match any other plans received new or previously submitted. Applicants will need to clarify what plans they are seeking approval for as they do not correlate with what was approved or at the site. Mr. Charles Muller and Mr. David Muller both with C.M. Landscaping, and Mr. Rustom Khouri with Carnegie Management were present to address the proposal. Mr. C. Muller reviewed that his company installed the existing plants and it was his company's understanding that what was installed had been approved. The plants that were installed are larger, heartier and will require less maintenance. His letter dated August 14, 2006 depicts what was planted in lieu of what was approved and what they could plant. He suggested he could address the commissions concerns of the August 14, 2006 (maxked received August 15, 2006) letter. Mr. Lasko voiced his frustrations that approved plans were arbitrarily changed after all the meetings the applicants had with the city whether they were an improvement or not. Mr. Muller advised that the letter received August 15, 2006, was a response to the items missing from the original plans as well as a statement of what they would install from the original plans which are missing if the commission decides they need to be installed. However the items in the letter are not shown on the plans marked received August 15, 2006, as those are the as-built drawings. Ms. Wenger advised that the applicants needed to submit an accurate landscaping plan prior to the commissions' approval. 3