05/27/2003 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Law Departments Comments: Mr. O'Malley suggested that the issue of the setback is consistent with the rest of the mall and was approved as part of a development plan some time ago. It would be appropriate to leave the line consistent and he does not believe a variance is required. Building Departrnent Comments: Ma-. Rymarczyk reviewed that the only issues are the area that will not be irrigated otherwise no issues. Engineering Comments: 1VIr. Durbin indicated that the site plan that was submitted is not a true site plan as there is no storm sewer, or other items required for review by Engineering. He indicated that he fully expected a new set of plans to be submitted to his department so that they could be reviewed. Mr. Spalding reviewed that the memo from the assistant engineer states that there were no utility, grading or true elevation plans as of yet. Mr. Greenberger suggested that the instructions he received from the building department state, "If a building is under 12,000 square feet and or the elevations are not changed by 24 or more inches then complete site improvement plans are not required for Planning Commission". He suggested that their elevations would not change the building is about 5,700 square feet, which is less than half of the 12,000. They are having those documents prepared and would not seek approval without each department approving their plans. Mr. Spalding informed the applicant that the engineering department is to make recommendations to the Planning Commission and without the proper plans, they do not have the opportunity to give their report. Mr. Spalding questioned the photometric plan that shows spillage onto Brookpark Road and questioned what if anything would be done to reduce the spillage. IVIr. Rymarczyk suggested that there has been three light plans submitted to Planning Commission and they would like the board to choose which light plan to use. Once the board picks which lighting plan they should use the building department will review the plan to determine if variances are required. He suggested that the applicants believe that no variances will be required. Mr. Greenberger voiced that they hoped to be sent to the Architectural Review Board for approval and fast tracked so they would not have to return to planning as they do not ineet in July. Mr. Spalding assured the applicant that they would be meeting in 7uly so they could return for final approval. W. Spalding motioned to table Jared The Galleria of Jewelfl-y; PP# 235-28-003 Great 1Vorthern Ma11 and refer to the Architectural Review Board for comments and their approval. The applicants will use revisecl lighting plan number #2. The proposal will go to the Board of Zoning Appeals with the recommendation that the irrigation variance be granted. K O'Rourke seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved. The clerk informed the applicants that they would go to the Board of Zoning Appeals on June 6, 2003 at 7:30 p.m. and the Architectural Review Board on June 18, 2003 at 5:30 p.m. and no further notices would be released. Mr. Rymarczyk questioned if the applicant wanted to address the required variances for the proposed sign package. Mr. Greenberger stated he did want the sign variance addressed now and ht a way. that he would get the packets for the board rig zl? At this point in the meeting an audience member came forward to request that the Planning Commission address Parcel-E next. Mr. Spalding questioned if the remaining applicants had objections to the board addressing Parcel-E next. As there were no objection, the chairperson called Parcel-E applicants forward at this point. V. COMMUNICATIONS: 1. Carneaie Management & Development Corp.; Parcel E, Preliminaa-v Land Use Plan PP# 236- 05-001 11