05/27/2003 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

?. Acting Chairman Spalding called all interested parties forward to review the proposal. Prior to the applicant speaking the chairman advised the audience members that they would all be given a chance to speak, but requested that their questions be concise and timely. Applicants Proposal: Mr. Suhayda the architect, Mr. Kula Kia's representative and Mr. Farrell Kia's Attorney were all present to review the proposal. Mr. Rymarczyk interjected that he would like to make it clear that this is not an approved plan it is a new proposal. Mr. Suhayda indicated that they first came before the board four years ago for this project, since this was tabled last year the owner acquired additional parcels on Porter and Lorain. This proposal now encompasses the whole city block from Dewey to Porter Road so the scope of the project has increased. This proposal shows the improvements on the corner of Porter and Lorain and they are back for the parcel north of Lorain that they did not receive approval for. 1VIr. Spalding suggested the applicant was addressing two separate proposals. Mr. Suhayda indicated that they wanted to combine the two into a master plan. Mr. Spalding suggested that the one issue needs to be addressed before moving to the next. He questioned what the circumstances were with the existing issues. Mr. Suhayda suggested the parcel to the north had modifications made after it were tabled last year. Landscaping has been increased, the curb cut was removed, and fencing has been added adjacent to the resident property to the north. They tried to follow all the notes from the last Planning Commission meeting. While addressing the north parcel the owner acquired the front south parcels, which are now included in the overall plan. Mr. Spalding advised the applicant to stick to the north parcel. He questioned if landscaping was placed along the residential driveway. Mr. Suhayda advised that they placed a five-foot buffer as well as a five-foot fence. Along Porter Road, they have added a grass tree line and a nine-foot landscape buffer. 1VIr. Spalding questioned if the Porter Road buffer matched that on Dewey Road. Mr. Suhayda suggested that it did not match the Dew Road buffer. Mr. Spalding questioned why the buffer was not matched. Mr. Suhayda indicated that if they match the buffer it would eliminate the amount of car storage space and we would have to reconfigure what they do with the north lot. Mrs. Hoff-Smith questioned if the fence would match the fence that is supposed to be placed on the mounds along Dewey Road. Mr. Suhayda suggested the fence would not match that on Dewey as the neighbor requested the fence be 8-feet high instead of 6-feet, which they are willing to do, if Planning Commission allows 8-feet. Building Department Comments: Mr. Rymarczyk commented that just addressing the north parcel alone, they require six (6) variances, which do not include the corner parcels. He reviewed that an irrigation variance is now required. A 5-foot variance for buffer to the north as 10-foot buffer is required. The apron cut off Porter is half on the new parcel and half on old parcel, which is to close to the Lorain Road intersecting street line. There are no concrete curbs shown on the lot plans, which are required. The parking lot lighting requires variances, as it does not comply with today codes. The location of the second ground sign requires a variance. 1i'Ir. Spalding questioned what the owner was going to do to resolve the numerous variance issues. Mr. Suhayda believed that most of the variances were already obtained when the other parcel along Lorain Road was approved. Mr. Rymarczyk informed the applicant that none of the variances listed have been granted. Mr. Suhayda commented that the setback for parking, for building and illumination was granted. 1Mr. Rymarczyk reiterated that illumination was not granted a variance and it does not meet the code. The buffer variance granted was for an existing building, which is no longer there therefore a 10-foot buffer is required. Now you are showing parking, which is a different issue. Mr. Suhayda conceded that it was in fact a different issue. Law Department Comments: Mr. O'Malley reviewed that the commission was reviewing two separate demolitions. One demolition has already taken place on the north east parcel and the second that is proposed has a 3