12/23/2003 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

building. He said as far as the other property owner is concerned, they were notified by the city and if they had any major concerns or thought the purchase wasn't going to happen, they probably would have shown up tonight. Mr. Koeth asked how the other side of Clague would be affected, the Dunkin Donuts proposal. 1VIs. Wenger said it would generate more traffic in the area but the Dunkin Donut proposal would as well. As of now, they do not know the scope of the project. The applicant is not at the phase where he would have to complete the traffic impact study. Mr. Koeth asked if they are setting precedent. He can appreciate the issue of the islands but they are running into the same problem at the opposite end of Clague with the Dunkin Donuts thing and the residential aspect. He said he is looking for them to be consistent. Ms. Wenger said what they are seeing is residents running into problems with access in and out of their parcels that are very close to the intersection of Clague and Lorain. She believes Mr. Montgomery's plan does not propose additional access points so each of those driveways then would be eliminated from that stretch of Clague. IVIr. Yager said he is certain it is commercial at least to the edge of the second property. He brought up the Shell station and the Magellan's strip. Mr. Montgomery confirmed that and said if you come out of the second driveway, it runs into the edge of Magellan's store. Mr. Lasko said there is an apartment building next to that. Mr. Yager said it is already a commercial area. Mr. Koeth said it was obviously rezoned when the other storeowner came through. Mr. Yager asked if the nursery falls directly behind the entire length of the site. Mr. 1VIontgomery said yes, with all three homes it runs to the rear. He said to keep in mind they are not seeking additional curb cuts. 1VIr. O'Malley referred to Chapter 1127, a proposed amendment to the zoning code can be initiated either by the Planning Commission or by introduction as an ordinance in Council. He said in some instances an applicant has been invited to come before the Planning Commission for the first step and then when the minutes become a report to Council, someone on the Board of Zoning and Development Committee might take up the applicant's proposal or agree with the Commission's recommendation if it makes one, and request that an ordinance be drafted to take a look at the rezoning. He said he would recommend that they not move on the consolidation plat. The developer is in the process of looking at an additional lot that may be added to the consolidation plat at some time in the future. He said perhaps they can pass on the rezoning consideration and move that on. He brought up the issue of the size of the lot. It does not conform to size and the engineer has pointed out to him that as a result of adding these residential lots it would be more conforming and would be in compliance with the retail zone. However, there are restrictions in 1139.06. It would have to be an acre and a half to support a free-standing restaurant, and this would not be an acre and a half. It would be over 40,000 square feet, which would be a sufficient size for a retail lot. Mr. Lasko said based upon Mr. Montgomery's comment about a potential addition of the third lot, for purposes of the consolidation would that third lot also have to be involved for purposes of the rezoning. Mr. O'MaIley said that is correct. Mr. Lasko said as a result perhaps the most prudent course of action, since that third piece may be involved and in order to deal with everything at one time, it might be better to table the entire matter. Mr. O'Malley said he does not think they are required to do it that way. They can separate the rezoning as a concept from the consolidation plat, table the plat and move the rezoning. Mr. Lasko asked if they should consider the rezoning of that third parcel. Mr. O'Malley said that is entirely up to the board. They are not bound by the contours of the plat in the zoning examination. Mr. Montgomery said since the third home would only be green space, it would change their plans for the building size. He would prefer if they can continue on with the course they have set. If he acquired the third piece and it goes as it should, he does not have a problem bringing that back at a future meeting. Time is an issue. The property has been sitting almost two years and it is a pricey corner tax wise. If he gets dragged into 7,8, or 9 months of review, it jeopardizes potential tenants that are looking at that corner and want to come in. Since it is not going to affect the building size and so forth and he believes they will acquire that third piece, he would ask the board if it is possible that they look at it as he has presented it. Mr. Yager said as he looks at the proposal and appreciates what Mr. Montgomery is saying, he feels he is not quite armed to address it. He understands from Ms. Wenger that the next parcel is the only parcel that separates the church from the corner site but he does not know that from the plan. He doesn't know that the nursery is completely behind there and what is directly opposite outside what Mr. Rymarczyk gave them. He likes the idea of the rezoning and would encourage it provided that when he went to look at the 10