09/12/2000 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.? , v.. CITY OF NORTH OL1ddS'I'ED "TOGETHER WE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCEi" PLANNING CO1VI10'IISSION MINTTTES- SEPTEMBER 12, 2000 7:30 P.M. IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS I. ROLL CALL: Chairman, Tallon called the meeting to order at 7:45pm. PRESENT: Chairman, Tallon, Board Members, K. O'Rourke, R. Koeth, T. Hreha, C. Allan, W. Spalding and S. Asseff. II. REVIEW AND CORRECTION OF MIlNUTES: The Planning Commission minutes of August 22, 2000 have been submitted for approval. The Planning Commission minutes dated August 22, 2000; submittal was mistakenly put on the agenda. Therefore, they will not be addressed at tonight's meeting. R. Tallon motioned to address the August 22, 2000 Planning Commission minutes at the next regularly scheduled meeting. The motion was seconded by, K. O'Rourke and unanimously approved. IlI. BUa,D1NGDEPARTMENT REQUEST'S: 1. Halleen KIA; 27726 Lorain Rd. Proposal consists of the demolition of two (2) existing buildings and the construction of a new car sales building. Note: Planning Commission tabled tliis proposal May 23, 2000 and on 7une 27, 2000, Planning Commission forwarded the proposal to the Board of Zoning Appeals with a recommendation to deny the variances requested. The Board of Zoning Appeals granted Halleen KIA their variance requests on 7uly 6, 2000. Chairman Tallon called all interested parties forward to review their pr?oposal. Mr. Suhayda the architect came forward to review the proposal. Mr. Suhayda indicated that they had an updated proposal. At the last Planning Commission meeting they did not have, detailed landscaping and lighting which is included this time. The Board of Zoning Appeals granted the variances for parking and building setback. They also indicated that they thought the lighting and landscaping was sensitive to the residential area i.e. the way the storage area is screened with mounding and landscaping. Mr. Tallon questioned if the project could go forward if sublot's 24 and 25 were not rezoned. Mr. Suhayda indicated that they could not move forward without the two lots being rezoned. Mr. Tallon commented that the applicant knew the board was not in favor of rezoning residential lots. Therefore, he did not see a need to discuss the proposal any further. Councilman Gareau questioned if the reason why the board would not address the proposal was due.to a rezoning issue pending. Mr. Tallon indicated that was correct. Councilman Gareau asked Mr. Dubelko from the law department for clarification as to whether or not it was . appropriate to proceed. He would also like the law department to offer an opinion for a circumstance such as this. Mr. Dubelko indicated that a proposal was before the commission, which had to be voted on. The extent of time, which the Planning Commission takes on