11/12/2002 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ordinance. Mr. Allan said the site is non-residential and abuts Lorain Road so he sees no problem with the lighting issue. Mr. Spalding said if it's a safety feature, he is very much in favor of it. Mr. Koeth asked for questions and comments from the audience. There were none. R. Koeth made a motion to table the proposal until the next meeting with the recommendation that they return with the renderings showing first, a red brick building with brick columns and the canopy without the red stripe, and the other rendering showing a red brick building with the regular columns and canopy. The board will make an effort to look at the site in Olmsted Falls. The motion was seconded by W. Spalding and unanimously approved. Proposal Tabled. Mr. 0'Malley suggested they check to make sure that the time for review is either waived or not expired under 1126.04 (e). He said regarding the pending lighting ordinance, he would recommend the Commission rely on planning standards and principles that they have applied in the past. The new ordinance being reviewed is not applicable to this petition but the Planning Commission has a long-standing history of requiring that photometrics be submitted and has a policy of declining to allow glare. There are code provisions that describe the Planning Commission's authority in that regard and he pointed out there have been occasions where residents of Silverdale have appeared before this board with concerns regarding light. As to the Architectural Review Board's recommendations, the Planning Commission is not bound by the Architectural Review Board per se. The Architectural Review Board makes recommendations and he believes the Planning Commission has done a fine job of assessing the substance of the comments by the Architectural Review Board. The fact that the Architectural Review Board did not approve a motion does not bind or prevent this Planning Commission from proceeding to try to adopt or follow the recommendations that were made. Daniel E Margulies (Pepper Joe's Restaurant); 24532 Lorain Road: Proposal consists of interior renovation for restaurant including new handicapped ramp, canvas canopy, railings, signage, etc. Note: Planning Commission tabled this proposal on 7-9-02. Variances are no longer required. Mr. George, the building owner, and Mr. Margulies, standing in for the architect, came forward to make their presentation. Mr. Koeth said there were questions from the last meeting that need to be brought up again. There were also recommendations by the engineering department. Mr. Koeth asked if there was a lot consolidation. Mr. George indicated it is in the works. He said he bought the land 12 years ago and the deed was lost by the county so there is a lengthy process to go through. Mr. Margulies said he has a preliminary plat for the consolidation. Mr. Rymarczyk said he believes we have one in the file that was submitted but until it is signed off it doesn't mean much. Mr. Koeth asked if the parking lot in the back is paved. Mr. George said it is not paved at this point. It is planned. Mr. Margulies said the plans show the preliminary engineering of how they will do it and how they will take care of the storm water. Mr. Koeth asked about curbing in the back. Mr. Margulies said it will be part of the paving and they will do whatever is required by code. Mr. Koeth said because of having the body shop downstairs he wants to know if they took care of all the code and EPA requirements and certifications. Mr. George said they have. Mr. Margulies pointed out that the Ohio building code allows the combination of these two uses. They just need to prove with their final architectural drawings that their assembly meets the code. Mr. Koeth said one big issue was the firewall. Mr. Margulies said it is really the ceiling floor assembly between the two uses. The whole building is masonry and they have the 2-hour firewall but they need a 3-hour separation from the body shop to the restaurant. He knows it is already 2 hours and they can make it 3 without a problem. Mr. George indicated he spoke with someone at the board of health and was told there is no problem as long as they meet the code. Mrs. Hoff-Smith asked if there will be any outside dining. Mr. George indicated there will not be. Mr. Spalding said one engineering department concern was having 2-way traffic. The engineer said 1-way traffic is fine. He asked if the applicant has addressed that issue. Mr. Margulies said it is basically a 1-way system except for one drive where they need to get back to the rear entrance of the body shop. That will be employee only. He said the restaurant faces Lorain and the body shop faces the rear. Mrs. Hoff-Smith asked what will keep the patrons from accessing the back parking lot. Mr. George pointed out it is gated every night when employees leave at 5:00 p.m. Mr. Spalding asked how a person coming in to the body shop would get back there. Mr. George pointed out they would stop just before the gate. There is a big garage door that faces Lorain and that is where a person would go. Mr. Margulies said the body shop office entrance is on the east side of the building. He then reviewed the plan with the board members and pointed out the offices and where the parking is controlled. They discussed the layout further. Mr. Spalding asked if they plan on enlarging any portion of the body shop. Mr. 1Vlargulies indicated they plan on getting rid of it. Mr. George said they may lease it out far something else, as the body shop business is a dying profession. Mrs. 0'Rourke asked if the exit signs read right turn only. Mr.