12/09/2009 Minutes (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Engineer DiFranco said while EDP Consultants will have a representative on site during construction, he recommends measures be in place to verify repairs are made per City requirements, not simply based on the judgment of EDP. He would like to see language included on the drawings stating the parameters of what is acceptable. Assistant Law Director O'Malley updated the Commission on the status of the property maintenance case in Rocky River Municipal Court. As of October 20, 2009 the case was resolved through plea negotiations. The court convicted the owners on some property maintenance issues while others were dismissed. The owners will attempt to resolve all violations before sentencing in December. Mr. O'Malley recommends the applicant not be subjected to conditions related to the landlord's property maintenance violations. The court will cause the defendants come into compliance with the Building and Engineering Departments' requirements. The asphalt must be installed before the end of this construction season. He recommends the Commission review the request under the usual conditional use standards. Is a church use compatible with a commercial district? Does it create adverse impacts uncharacteristic of that zoning district? A church assembly in a General Retail District is appropriate. The kinds of traffic and uses are more compatible with retail than residential. Mr. Bohlmann agrees the Commission should place no restrictions on the tenant but feels they can place restrictions on the owner. Mr. O'Malley disagreed, saying the restrictions on the owner are related to building and engineering codes, which are being enforced through the court, not in the context of this review. Mr. Bohlmann feels the existing lighting is not adequate or safe for the church's evening meetings. He would like to know what type of lighting will be installed. Mr. O'Malley said the fixtures under the overhang are part of the property maintenance effort. The existing fixtures will be rehabilitated or replaced. The parking lot lights are considered existing, non-conforming. He agrees the lighting is a reasonable safety concern but recommends the Commission not impose that as a requirement against the tenant for conditional approval. A conditional use request provides less authority to the Commission than if it were a redevelopment proposal. Mr. Lasko agreed the matter before the Commission is of a more narrow scope. The issues of conditional use and pending maintenance violations on the property must be separated. Ms. Meredith said when this proposal first came before the Commission in August the traffic generation was considered part of the conditional use review. Mr. O'Malley agreed; as part of 1118.03(d), if the conditional use creates traffic hazards or otherwise adversely impacts adjacent uses the Commission could decline the request. Mr. Laslco said as the Commission proceeds through the checklist each subsection can be voted on separately. Ms. Meredith asked if there is a no vote on any of the subsections, could the permit be issued. Mr. O'Malley said it could not. Ms. Meredith feels the parking lot is a safety concern. Inclement weather and poor lighting will compound the issue and the landlord has a history of not following through on repairs. She wonders if the Commission can tie the tenant's occupancy to the completion of the parking lot repairs. Mr. O'Malley said in the past those types of enforcement techniques usually fail. The expectation of the City is that the parking lot will be repaired before the court's sentencing in December. Ms. Meredith asked if the engineering requirements could be added so that their concerns are addressed. Mr. O'Malley said no; the Planning and Design Commission should not administrate building and engineering standards. Mr. Bohlmann said if the parking lot is a safety issue then the lighting can be considered a related hazard. He would like to see what type of lights will be installed as well as information on the 2