09/24/2002 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.? freceive direction from the Building, Engineering and Law Department departments and they are a11 being contacted before this board is addressed and it is Planning Commission approval that is required. Mr. 0'Malley felt that the Building Commissioner was trying to give Planning Commission the opportunity to address the proposal and its problems before sending the applicants to Columbus. If the lot split denied the condition does not exist "nor" does it exist until it is approved. Mr. Oravecz questioned if the board could approve the proposal contingent upon the States approval. Board members voiced that they would not be comfortable doing that. Mr. Oravecz indicated that they would need a reason to go to Columbus therefore adjudication letter from someone in the City is needed. The letter just needs to state that they can not do the lot split due to the circumstances of the wall. Mr. O'Malley indicated that the Building Commissioner is the one to write'the letter as the keeper of the code. Board members felt that there were to many variables to address the proposal at this time. By the City splitting the lot now without an ofFicial plan it creates all the problems and puts the City in a position that they can not control. Mr. Schmitz questioned if they received the approval of the state would the board approve the lot- split. W. Lasko felt that the board might be better off denying the lot-split until the lease is almost up and an official plan is submitted to the City. Mrs. Fuller, a resident questioned if the back building was affected by the request. She also questioned if the rumor she heard was true regarding a Wallgreens store being built on the site. She is all for cleaning up the site but she does not want to see a two story building. She would like to know what is going to be done before it is approved. Mr. Oravecz questioned if the drawings the board received could be used as a development plan and if any cha,nges take place, they would just retum. Mr. O'Malley sta.ted that the drawings do not constitute a development plan. The Law Department would be entertained by the concept of an agreement but it would need to be attached to a development plan. J. Lasko motioned to table Romp Realty Lot Split PP# 237-01-001,007, 007 their proposal is to split Permanent Parcel Number 237-01-001 into two parcels. Pending the determination by the building department as it pertains to the variances that would be required i.e. specifically the code violations that might be created by such a lot- split. Furthermore, a presentation of a development pla.n and or a proposal from the developer as it pertains to what their intentions are for the lot if in fact the lot-split is obtained. This would include consultation and recommendations from the Law Department as to the structure of that type of written arrangement. pertaining to the plans and proposal. T. Hreha seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved. Proposal Tabled Indefinitely. V. COMMUNICATIONS; Chairnian, Koeth indicated that he received a letter from Building Zoning and Development Chairman George Nasher. The letter indicated that Council would not take further rezoning actions beyond the soccer complex until the homeowners come forward and make application to have their lots rezoned. Chauman Koeth instructed the clerk to let the two homeowners lrnow Council will not act until they make application. Mr. 0'Malley suggested that if Council is not willing to act on Planning Commissions recommendations then perhaps the Mayor would like to address the issue. Furthermore, Planning Commission at any time can determine to discuss plans for streets or rezoning issues at any time, they are not subject to an owner making application for rezoning. VI. COMMITTEE REPORTS: VII. MINOR CHANGES: VIII. NEW BUSINESS: IX. OLD BUSINESS: X. ADJOURNMENT: 10:15 pm. Chairman Koeth adjoumed the meeting at 10:20 p.m. /6/2 2/D Robert Koeth, Chairman Donria Rote, Clerk of Commissi 7