Laserfiche WebLink
.A... <br />CI'I'Y OF N0R'TH OL1VI3'I'EI) <br />"'I'OGETHER WE CAN MAKIE A DIF'FERENCE!" <br />PLANNING COllZMISSION <br />MINUTES -MAX 14, 2002 <br />7:30 P.M. IN COiTNCIL CHAIVIBERS <br />I. ROI,L CALL: Chairman Koeth called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. <br />PRE.SENT: Chairman Koeth, and Board members, W. Spalding, K. O'Rourke, J. Lasko, <br />S. A.sseff, and T. Hreha <br />. ABISENT: C. Allen <br />ALSO PRESENT: Asst. Law Director, B. O'Malley, Asst. Building Commissioner, <br />T. Rymarczyk, City Engineer, P. D.eichmann, Asst. Clerk of Commissions, A. Kilbane <br />II. RE«W AND CORRECTION OF NIINUTES: The Planning Commission minutes dated April 23, <br />2002 have been submitted for approval. <br />Cha;irman Koeth asked for any corrections to the minutes. Mr. O'Malley asked for a notation for the <br />record that although the vote was taken on the tattoo parlor at the last meeting, the minutes indicated <br />the inotion carried. He said it was an accurate record of the proceedings, however it was brought to <br />his attention after the fact that the motion, in fact, did not carry. The rules of the Planning <br />Corrimission call for a majority, so the minutes can stand as they relate to what took place with <br />supplementation by the clerk. It appears it will become a mute point in light of the applicant's <br />withdrawal. Mr. Asseff pointed out the minutes reflect that the motion was denied. Mr. Koeth <br />indic;ated that the board did carry it with the understanding that the majority in attendance voted for it, <br />but we did not have the majority of the Planning Commission present to actually pass it. Mr. <br />O'Malley said the version of the minutes he reviewed previously indicated the motion carried as that <br />was the understanding at the time. He added the minutes should reflect what took place at the meeting <br />and the subsequent correction should be noted. Mrs. Kilbane, the Assistant Clerk, pointed out that a <br />revi:;ed version of the minutes was distributed and reflected the motion was denied. Mr. Asseff asked <br />for c;larification on the rule for a motion to pass. He asked if the rule refers to a majority of inembers <br />on P'lanning Commission, and not the majority present. Mr. Koeth indicated that was correct and they <br />would discuss it further under Communications. R. Koeth made a motion that the minutes with the <br />correction be accepted. The motion was seconded by W. Spalding. Roll call on the motion: W. <br />Spalding, K. O'Rourke, S. Asseff, R. Koeth, Yes; J. Lasko, T. Hreha, Abstain. <br />Mr. 1:oeth mentioned that Buckeye Building has been taken off the agenda. He indicated they would <br />like to make another agenda adjustment. He asked if the representatives from Ruby Tuesday were <br />present. He said he would like to have them address their proposal first. Please refer to Section N, <br />New Developments and Subdivisions, for the Ruby Tuesday proposal which was handled first by <br />Planr.iing Commission. <br />III. BUILDING DEPARTMENT REQUESTS: <br />1. Bucl.ceve Building (Nathan Sexstella); 23203 Lorain Road; <br />Profiosal consists of determination of similar use for a Body Piercing/Tattoo Parlor under sections <br />1139.01(4)(A)(2) and 1123.10. Note: Section 1139.01(4)(A)(2) allows offices for dentists, doctors or <br />other recognized professionals. However, there are no provisions for Body Piercing/Tattoo Parlors. <br />Parking variance will be required for 2 car parking spaces as 16 total parking spaces are required for <br />this structure and the most cars which will fit on the site is 14.