05/14/2002 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

land-banked. Mr. Koeth indicated the ones that are furthest up in the front, the ones that were proposed. Mr. Kacirek asked if the brick wall would extend on the east side. Mr. Koeth indicated they are not making that recommendation. Mr. Kacirek asked for his reason on that. Mr. Koeth said they believe the space between the parking right now is sufficient. He added there is green space in between there and there will be a curb there. Mr. Koeth indicated the proposal will be passed on to the Architectural Review Board so they can also take a look at the plans. They can look at the materials being used and if they have any recommendations, the Planning Commission would like to see i:hat. The motion was seconded by J. Lasko and unanimously approved. IV. NE1V DEVELOPMENTS AND SUBDIVISIONS: 1. Ruby Tuesdav' 26774 Lorain Road: The proposal is to consolidate Permanent Parcel Number 232-26-003 (0.459 acres) and Permanent Parcel Number 232-26-004 (1.054 acres) into one parcel (1.513 acres). The Location is on the north side of Lorain Road and approximately 200 feet west of Sparky Lane. Zoning is Retail Business, General. Ms. Stephanie Ga.lvin, an engineer with WD Partners, came forward on behalf of Ruby Tuesday. She indii;ated this is an extension of what came before the Planning Commission earlier in the year. They received building approval and are already under construction at the site. They need to record this as a sirigle lot. As it went through Planning Commission before, it was still officially recorded as two sepa.rate parcels and they need it to be listed as a single lot for record purposes. She added that no chariges were made to the proposal and everything else has already gone before the Commission. Mr. Assa;ff asked if the consolidation issue was discussed when the original plans were approved. He said it sriould have been known at that time that they would need the lot consolidation. Ms. Galvin indicated she is uncertain whether or not it was discussed at Planning Commission meetings but it was discussed throughout the process with the building and engineering departments. They knew it was something that would need to be done before final occupancy. Mr: Deichmann indicated the consolidation was requested by the City. Mr. O'Malley mentioned it is commonplace to request and requ.ire a consolidation to proceed. He added that he concurs with Mr. Asseff s observation that it shoiild have been addressed at the time that the development plan was presented. Mr. Koeth said that is sc>mething they can note if that situation comes up again. Ms. Galvin said this was an item that came up when they originally brought the plan to Planning Commission. They simply wanted to cont.inue with the approval process as far as the Planning Commission, Building Departinent, and Engineering Department so they could uphold their time line. R. Koeth made a motion to approve the consolidation of Permanent Parcel Number 232-26-003 and Perrnanent Parcel Number 232-26-004 for Ruby Tuesday at 26774 Lorain Rd. The motion was seconded by T. Hreha and unanimously approved. V. COP?IlVIUNICATIONS: Mr. Koeth pointed out that the architects for the library will be coming in to make a presentation to Plan.ning Commission, and to members of the Architectural Review Board, at the next Planning Conunission meeting. They do not officially have to do that. Mr. O'Malley said, in his opinion, since it is a municipally created building, that is in conjunction with the county library board, they do have to come in. He added that Planning Commission has a charter obligation to review any municipal builiiings that are being proposed. Mr. Koeth said he is not against that at all. It will be a joint effort between Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Board. Mr. O'Malley said what is difff:rent is maybe the City, as the applicant, does not make the same type of application or present the same development plans that might be required of commercial applicants. He added the same planning principles would apply as far as how it relates to neighboring facilities, and how it would 9