05/22/2001 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. owners of the two lots are the same. There could be a problem down the road if one of the parcels is ? sold howevet-; the parties involved would have to work out an easement at that time. Mrs. O'Rourke indicated that the Architectural Review Board wanted Australian pine trees, rooftops are to be screened and the dumpsters are to be enclosed and have reinforced gates. She questioned if the owner had made the changes. Mr. Hammerschmidt indicated that all the changes were being put on a new set of prints, which will be submitted. Mr. Conway reviewed that the applicant needed to submit the new drawings before attending the building zoning and development meeting. Therefore, the Chairman of the Architectural Review Board could sign off the plans. Mr. Spalding questioned if anyone from the audience had questions, no one came forward. Mr. Conway commented that he would like the applicant to review the phases that will be taking place as there was a question as to whether or not the board could approve phases. Mr. Dubelko indicated that phases in limited industrial zoning are not covered in our City code, the Planning Commission should treat the phase as a self contained development on its own. What the board approves in so called phase one should be sufficient to stand by itself and comply with the code. 1VIr. Conway reviewed tfiat the applicant would have to treat the proposal as one project not in phases. Mr. Hammerschmidt remarked that he could not afford to complete the developinent as one project. This has been presented as phases since we started. The Architectural Review Board reviewed this plan as phases. Mr. Conway suggested that the applicant review for the board members what was explained to the Architectural Review Board. Mr. Hammerschmidt reviewed that each building will be built 12000 square feet at a time in four phases. Mr. Conway indicated that the board could not treat the project as phases once approved the work will need to be completed within one year. You could request minor changes so that would give you about 15 months to complete your project. Mr. Hammerschmidt reviewed the new blue prints with the board members. Mr. Dubelko indicated that there is two ways to approach the project. The first is to review this as one complete project and then as the future additions are going to be added the applicant would return for each addition added. The second way to approach the proposal is to approve the whole project with the condition that if the applicant stops anywhere along the line then any structure has to be a completed structure. Each structure built has to be a completed structure, which does not include temporary walls. The applicant would need to return for each addition but it would be much more streamlined providing there is not major changes within our code. Mr. Conway suggested it could be possible to address some things under minor changes. 1VIr. Hammerschmidt questioned if the whole project could be approved and as each phase is added, they would do a quick run by the Planning Coinmission. First phase will have temporary stone drive then the next phase the drive will be graded. W. Spalding motioned to approve Fieldstone Development of S/L 11 Industrial Pkwy their proposal which consists of a multi-phase, multi-tenant office warehouse facility conditioned upon each phase being a completed structure with all walls in tacked, landscaping, lighting and parking in place for that structure. Subsequently for any additional phase or structure. This proposal is not being approved in phases but in one motion. The motion was seconded by K. O'Rourke and unanimously approved. IVIotaon Carried. Note: in the fraining of the motion discussion took place as to what type of drive would be put in place and parking during the construction of the site. The clerk reviewed that the proposal would go to the Building Zoning and Development on June 12, 2001 at 6:30pm. 3. Braulio Roldan (Roldan's Car Service); 23055 Lorain Rd. Proposal consists of adding a Sunroom/Storage to the existing structure. Note: Planning Commission heard this proposal 4/25/00 & 3/27/01. Board of Zoning Appeals granted variances 5/4/00. Architectural Review Board reviewed this proposal4/18/Ol . Acting Chairman, W. Spalding called all interested parties forward to review the proposal. Mr. Mertes the contractQr came forward to review the proposal. Mr. Mertes indicated that the addition would not be used for storage. It will only be used as a sitting area. Mr. Hreha questioned why a leisure room 2