01/13/2010 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

requirements tied to a proposed conditional use permit if they are not related. Mr. Lasko asked the applicant how the door opening would be closed and Mr. White said a masonry type block would be used as the original brick was no longer available. Ms. Priestas said the opening would be closed with a material that would match the existing masonry to ensure that it is aesthetically pleasing and matches the building. To address enclosing the dumpsters that topic has not been discussed with the owner but could be. When the building was first constructed they had a board on board enclosure for the dumpsters but trucks damaged the enclosure so it was eliminated. Mr. Lasko asked if the commission wished to address the matter as a development or as a conditional use request with a minor change. Mr. O'Malley said there was a third option for the commission if they could tie the dumpster enclosure to possible adverse impacts then ii could be a condition of the use permit. He suggested the commission could use chapter 1118.03(g) if they believed a significant adverse impact would arise without an enclosure. Mr. Rerlco said currently there are no enclosures so the applicant's willingness to show an enclosure in their minor change submittal would eliminate his concerns. Mr. Bohlmann expressed frustration over the conditional use permit chapter as written and felt it hindered the review. Mrs. Meredith did not thinlc a dumpster enclosure was a significant adverse impact and could be addressed by the applicant in their minor change application. Mr. Laslco said although he agreed a dumpster enclosure is warranted he felt the commission would be hard pressed to tie the enclosure to the conditional use permit. He asked if the commission could address the conditional use permit then determine if the submittal should be addressed as a development or minor change and Mr. O'Malley said yes. Mr. Bohlmann asked if a photometric plan should be submitted and Mr. Laslco said that as there were no changes proposed to lighting, a photometric plan would not be wananted. Mr. O'Malley said if the applicants are proposing the rear door as a primary means of ingress and egress for the church, lighting, parking, traffic flow along the rear impacting the abutting residents could become an issue. Mr. Mitchell said the building department would require the new plans to include existing light fixtures, loading spaces, proper ADA parking, building materials and the location of the dumpsters. Mr. Lasko said the Commission would review 1118.03 in determining if the proposed use should be permitted. Commissioners felt the proposed use met the requirements of (a) through (g) in the affirmative including the existing screening along the southern property line which has matured and is more than adequate. In addition an agreement for the parking arrangements will satisfy 1161.06 requirements and eliminate the need for a variance. A site plan will be submitted showing the relocated dumpsters, required ADA parking, loading spaces, and building materials to be used to enclose the existing loading door which will be addressed under minor change. Mr. Lasko moved, seconded by Mrs. 1VIeredith, to recommend City Council grant a conditional use permit to CMS09-13 Calvary Corrnmunity Church of 28887 Lorain Road based upon the forgoing findings and conditions stated. Roll call: Lasko, Meredith, Cotner, Rerko, Malone - yes, Bohlmann - no; rnotion passed 5-1. Ms. Wenger said a major revision of the conditional use chapter was conducted two years earlier Churches requiring a conditional use in a residential district makes sense but requiring a conditional use in a retail district does not and perhaps that is what needs to be addressed. 3