10/28/2003 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

the preliminary plans were approval of placement only. Mr. Yager voiced that if the other parties involved were so worried about our intent why were they not present to hear what the City has to say. Mr. Berryhill again suggested that if Planning Commission did not forward the proposal to the Board of Zoning Appeals for the November 5, 2003 meeting he was not sure if he would be returning at all. "NOTE THE NEXT SECTION OF THE MINUTES ARE TRANSCRIBED FROM A THIItD TAPE" Mr. O'Malley reviewed that the Planning Commission would be in a better position to give the applicants a favorable recommendation for their variances if they were provided a more detailed set of plans. When the applicants go before the Board of Zoning Appeals, Planning Commission makes recommendations as to how they feel about the variances being requested. It would be to everyone's best interest to receive comments from the Architectural Review Board and City Forester. He believes that the Planning Commission is trying very hard to work with the applicant. Mr. Berryhill suggested that he is working with a very irrational owner who has a history with the city of being irrational and his back is against the wall. Mr. Koeth felt that he would think the owner would be happy that the City is moving in the direction that it is as this has been an on going project for 15-years now. Mr. Berryhill suggested that the city had given up nothing, they need their variances, and Planning Commission can not grant them. The variances they need have nothing to do with an architectural look. He has a chance of not coming back. Mrs. Hoff-Smith indicated that the Planning Commission could not compromise their decision making process because an owner is irrational. Mr. O'Malley suggested that the commission table the issue to a date prior to the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting of December. Which would assure the applicant that if he submits what has been requested for the second meeting in November they could possibly be passed on to the Board of Zoning Appeals for their December meeting. It is not a guarantee but it makes some assumptions that the applicant will provide the impute the commission needs. R. Koeth motion to table Carnegie Management & Development Corporation, Parcel E. If the applicants can meet all the commissions concerns listed in the minutes above outside the traffic and pedestrian survey then they can return to Planning Commission on November 25, 2003. The proposal will go to the Architectural Review Board for their impute before returning. J. Lasko seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved. Proposal Tabled Note in the framing of the motion Ms. Hoff-Smith thanked the applicants for the progress that they have made thus far. IV. NEW DEVELOPMENTS AND SUBDIVISIONS: V. CONIMUNICATIONS: l. Review Ordinance 2003-144 and make recommendation to Council. Planning Commission tabled this at their 10-14-03 meeting. Mr. Koeth asked for further recommendations for ordinance 2003-144. Mr. Spalding felt that the recommendations made by the new City Planner should be incorporated into the ordinance. Mr. Hreha questioned if it will be a recommendation to have the City Planner in attendance at all Planning Commission meetings. Mr. Yager indicated that other cities require their City Planner to attend all Planning Commission meetings. The City Planner is the one that carries the weight of all the information and he or she needs to be able to relate to the Commission what goes on between meetings as well as proposals at the meetings. Mr. Rymarczyk questioned how the commission would address the review time listed in the ordinance. The Building Commissioner would like time to review plans for possible variances or zoning issues that may need to be addressed prior, to the timeframe of review of both parties. Mr. Koeth would like the periods for 9