06/27/2000 Minutes (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

is the same plan as presented before, but with a different presenter. He indicated this proposal would totally destroy the property value of the first five houses on Dewey. Road. Dr. Dory, another Dewey Road resident came forward and indicated she is in agreement with Mr. Jordan's comments, along with the concern for drainage and additional traffic. She indicated that there are only 16 residents on the street and he would be destroying the heritage of the residents of Dewey Road. Dr. Dory indicated that Mr. Halleen has stated after one of the meetings to another neighbor that he is concerned with providing for h'is own family. She reiterated that in turn he is destroying the heritage of the Dewey Road residents. She indicated that if the City chooses to make decisions that would be a detriment to the quality of life of good, established citizens of the City, then those citizens would leave the city. Mr. Brant, another Dewey Resident came forward and indicated that since 1965 there has been controversy with these two lots. He indicated that there was once a comprehensive plan to put in Garden apartments, but he was not sure of what happened to that plan. He indicated that he would like to see Mr. Halleen stay on Lorain Road and off of Dewey Road. W. Hreha indicated his concerns for the documents before him. He reviewed that the Landmarks Commission was to make a ruling in 60 days, then the applicants applied to Planning Commission in which it was tabled. He indicated that there still is nothing from Landmarks Commission. Mr. Dubelko indicated that it was never required to have Landmarks Minutes before the Planning Commission. The Building 1Department would not have placed. it on the agenda unless they were cQnvinced that Laridmarks had ruled. Mr. Hreha indicated that the applicant is here looking for approval for somethirig, but the request has not been clearly stated and they have alluded to preliminary plans that Planning Commission has not seen. W. Dubelko indicated that he is concerned with the same thing. Mr. Hreha indicated that the Board has been more than courteous with people's time. W. Dubelko indicated that when a proposal comes before Planning Coinmission, it is expectecl that it will meet all the requirements of the Zoning Code. If it does not, then it must be accompanied by a request for a variance and that is what the Planning Commission's duty is to make a recommendation to the Board of Zoning Appeals. He does not see this and is not sure if a variance has been applied for. W. lZymarczyk indicated that a request had been made for variances. Mr. Tallon questioned what the variances were. Mr. Rymarczyk indicated the variance were for a front set back for building and parking area and for a parking variance for the side yard. Mr. Koeth questioned why Planning Commission had not received any of this information. Mr. Tallon questioned why this information was not included in the agenda and questioned if the variances were applied for before the meeting. Mr. Rymarczyk indicated that they had been. Mr. Dubelko indicated that this is an important fact, and he recommends Planning Commission make a recommendation to Board of Zoning Appeals with respect to the vaxiances. Mr. Tallon suggested tabling the proposal until it is placed on the agenda in the proper form. Mr. Dubelko indicated that it depends on who is at fault. W. Tallon questioned if. Mr. Rymarczyk had a list of the variances available. W. Rymarczyk indicated that he did not have them with him, but he could go over the variance roughly. He indicated that the new building requiring approximately a 70-foot setback, a 15-foot setback for parking lot area on Lorain Road, and a 5- foot setback along Dewey Road. Mr. Tallon questioned if Mr. Rymarczyk could v 6.