| Ms. Goodwin explained that it is common for changes to occur between the |
|
| time a site plan is approved at the conceptual level in terms of its |
|
| compliance with zoning ordinance requirements. The Fire Department has |
|
| fire prevention ordinances that they administer. She acknowledged that |
|
| sometimes changes occur. Mr. Hartner did indicate in his letter that the |
|
| building plans that he is now reviewing differ from the original approved site |
|
| plan. She did not receive a revised site plan from the applicant indicating |
|
| those changes were to be reflected on a site plan. There is a letter to the |
|
| file indicating there were changes based on the building plans that were |
|
| submitted. She has a recommendation for approval of the site plan from |
|
| the Fire Department. The BOCA code comes into play when building plans |
|
| are reviewed. BOCA requirements typically are not reviewed at the time |
|
| the site plan is presented because the plan examiner does not participate |
|
| in the site plan review process. Ordinance Enforcement officers are |
|
| charged with that. Part of the issue is that the two plan examiners are also |
|
| doing construction plan review. There was not adequate communication |
|
| between the Building Department, the applicant, and the Planning |
|
|
| Ms. Goodwin understood the Planning Commission's reluctance to move |
|
| on this plan if there are other changes that are not reflected on it. Ms. |
|
| Goodwin acknowledged that the site layout is the same. The concept is the |
|
| same as what was presented to the Planning Commission last year. It |
|
| appears that the size of the building has been reduced. If the Planning |
|
| Commission felt that the plan needs to come back for further review, that |
|
| can be done. An alternative would be to extend the site plan as it was |
|
| presented originally. If there are significant modifications involving fire |
|
| safety, then that can be brought back to the table. She believed that the |
|
