Laserfiche WebLink
CITY OF N012'TH OLMSTEI) <br />"TOGE'THER WE CAN MA.KE A DIP'FERENCE!" <br />PLANNING COMIVIISSION <br />MINUTES -1dIARCH 28, 2000 <br />7:30 P.M. IN COUNCIL CHAlVMERS <br />1. ROLL CALL: <br />Acting Chairman, Spaldina called the meeting to order at 7:40PM. <br />PRESENT: Board members, K. O'Rourke, W. Spalding, T. Hreha, C. Allan and Chairman, R. <br />Tallon arrived at 7:45P1VI. <br />ALSO PRESENT: Assistant Law Director, J. Dubelko, Building Commissioner, D. Conway,__ <br />Assistant City Engineer, D. McDermott, and Clerk of Commissions, D. Rote. <br />ABSENT: Board members, S. Asseff and R. Koeth. <br />II. REVIEW AND CORRECTION OF NIlNUTES: The minutes of February 29, 2000 and March <br />14, 2000, Planning Commission meetings have been submitted for approval. <br />K. O'Rourke motioned to approve the February 29, 2000 Planning Commission minutes as <br />written. The motion was seconded by T. Hreha and unanimously approved. <br />C. Allan motioned to approve the March 14, 2000 Planning Commission minutes as written. The = <br />motion was seconded by W. Spalding and unanimously approved. <br />III. BUILDING DEPARTMENT REQiJESTS: <br />1. Soccer Sportplex; 31515 Lorain Rd. <br />, Proposal consists of an addition added to the existing building. The Planning Commission on <br />March 14, 2000 and the Architectural Review Board heard this proposal March 22, 2000. <br />Chairman Tallon called all interested parties forward to review the proposal requested. Mr. <br />Schmidt, the owner of Soccer Sportplex and Mr. Randy Smith, the Architect came forward to <br />review the proposal. Mr. Tallon questioned if the applicant had submitted new plans that <br />showed masonry around the entire addition. NIr. Schmidt answered "no": Mr. Tallon indicated <br />-- that the applicant would need to submit plans showing masonry around the entire addition. Mr. <br />Schmidt suggested that the Architectural Review Board led him to believe that the issue of <br />masonry was due to a building requirement. Mr. Conway indicated that masonry is not a <br />building code issue, the Architectural Review Board just prefers that the addition, match the <br />existing building. Mr. Schmidt indicated that the south wall is now metal so he does not <br />understand why the addition needed to include masonry. He questioned if the south wall of the <br />addition could be metal like the existing wall presently was. Mr. Tallon indicated that the <br />Planning Commission also wanted the addition to be masonry to match the existing building. <br />Mr. Conway indicated that the reason the south metal wall was approved when the existing <br />building was approved was because the board knew that there would be an addition added. Mr. <br />Tallon reminded Mr. Schmidt that when the existing building came before the Planning <br />Commission his plans showed an addition would be added at a later date, and that was the only <br />reason the south wall was allowed to be metal. Mr. Conway indicated that new plans showing <br />the addition to be masonry should be submitted and have the stamp of approval before it moves <br />on to the Board of Zoning and Development. Mr. Tallon indicate that if Mr. Schmidt submitted <br />new plans showing the addition to be masonry the Planning Commission could then pass the <br />proposal on to Board of Z,oning and Development. Mr. Conway reminded the board members <br />that they had questions regarding lighting issues at the last meeting. Mr. Smith submitted cuts <br />of the light fixtures that they would be using, along with a light site plan. He indicated that the <br />lights would be a single bulb shoebox type light mounted on the building to shine downward.