Call to order – 9:
Roll Call –
Present:
Absent:
Mandatory Referrals (All approved)
- Ordinance #2210-05: City property on
- Ordinance #119-06: The sale of Land Reutilization Program property located on Cedar Avenue, between East 100th and 101st Streets to Fairfax Renaissance Development Corporation. This land is for the
- Ordinance #161-06: Amend a previously passed ordinance passed on
Summary Calendar (All approved)
- Ordinance #115-06: Authorized the sale of Land Reutilization Program property on
- Ordinance #116-06: Authorized the sale of Land Reutilization Program property on
- Ordinance #118-06: Authorized the sale of Land Reutilization Program property on
- Ordinance #22-06: To vacate a portion of
- Ordinance #17-06: To vacate a portion of the 1st un-named Alley, west of
What should have been a routine approval was dragged on for nearly an hour. I am not going to get all of this correct, but I will try. The property either currently has or is proposed to have four units on it: three single-family and one multi-family – none of which would be owner occupied. Partly because of this and with issues regarding the legality of the current driveway ribbon (in addition to the lack of support from the local councilman) the commission did not approve the lot split.
It was suggested the owner, who was not present, might consider tearing one of the houses down and place (legal) driveway with a nice garage and carriage house in its place.
Quote of the day –
“Never let the market dictate a good planning decision.”
This should have also been a relatively simple approval; however, the owner of the proposed gas station did not take well to the local development corp. committee’s comments about the project and instead of coming back to them with improvements, they went straight to the commission (with said improvements… or at least some of the).
What is planned is to tear down the existing structure and have it replaced with a new one. What was an issue had to do with landscaping and certain design elements (the business is located near
In the end, the commission approved the plan with a condition that the existing guardrail along an adjacent side street is taken down and in its place, a decorative black aluminum fence along the entire street edge.
Midtown Design Review, M2006-001 (approved)
BRD,
Design Review,
Stockyard Homes, LP., Lease Purchase Properties, Scattered Site Single-Family Houses
18 units of housing to be built on empty lots throughout the Stockyards Neighborhood. Three differmet models will be available.
Director’s Report (none)
At the January 6 Planning Commission meeting,
Today was his day. What follows are some of the comments made by some of the Commission members during this time.
Cimperman -
*Paul Alsenas brought the bridge alignment issue to the public’s attention.
*ODOT recently was part of a meeting with numerous politicians (not Paul Alsenas) and all came intoconsensus regarding the dropping of the southern alignment
*The Economic Development study still has not been done
*Perhaps we should invite
*Mayor
Coyne –
*He disagreed with Cimperman stating the creation of these places were circumstantial
Cimperman –
*ODOT Director Proctor told
*All this time ODOT had been asking for us to compromise on very aspects of the freeway design repeatedly. We have been compromising for 5 ½ years.
*There are some major problems ahead with this project. Attention has been brought to the consultants and ODOT regarding the failing bulkheads on the
Kuri –
*There was a 50 person scoping committee with no one person or agency being held accountable
Cimperman –
*The scoping Committee was designed to fail
*In June of 2004, ODOT said they would include community development with the project. *Sometime between then and June of 2005, something happened where they decided not to address it.
*There is a political feeling that we (
*“You think they (ODOT) doesn’t get it… I think they do get it and are purposely avoiding it.”
Posts
2 comments:
scott,
nice work with this post. sounds like quite an intense meeting. odot certainly needs to be held accountable for their (in)action
did the meeting end with the odot discussion? does this mean that the entire plan has yet to be approved and that only the bridge is a done deal?
thanks for the reporting - the attendance itself is news. are planning commission members paid?
oh and one last thing. in regards to odot, do you have any idea where in ohio law it states that redistributions from the federal gas tax must be used for road construction?
Scott, great reporting! I never have enough time in the week to make it to these. I know you don't either, which makes your attendance all that much more impressive!
Planning Commission members, to my knowledge, are paid. In the past, they weren't, but that's changed.
I'm glad to hear the response of some of the planners/council people on the Commission to ODOT's questionable and costly work. It reinforces much of what I've observed. However, are we to believe that the City is going to actually show a backbone here?
Post a Comment