Laserfiche WebLink
<br />within the parcel since there would be several sharp turns; and 25 parking spaces <br />would be lost. The plan that has been submitted gives direct access into the <br />development and ha.s customer pa.rking right in the front or, if that area is fiull, <br />directly behind with employee parking in the rear. Mr. Thomas mentioned several <br />of the planners comments: that there are no plarmed pedestrian access through <br />this parcel, pedestrians coming frorl the balance of parcel "B" must cross over <br />half of the site's lot width; and that no crosswalks are planned. It was pointed <br />out that employees from the proposed Moen Building would be in walking distance <br />if there were sidewalks and crosswalks. Having a strip of restaurants along Great <br />Northern might be good for customers who are driving, but does not necessarily <br />serve the development area. Mr. Smith had no problem with putting in sidewalks <br />for their portion of the development. Mr. Thomas explained that issue was not <br />only sidewalks but walkways within the development,and since the balance of the <br />parcel is to be developed later it should be integrated. Vice Chairman Orlowski <br />stated that the proposed design will soften the two restaurants and will <br />integrate it into the larger complex going down Country Club Boulevard. Mr. <br />Skoulis would like some kind of pedestrian access from Great Northern Boulevard <br />directly into the restaurant without people having to go around to Country Club. <br />N1r. Smith believed that they could do that, but advised that there is a chain <br />link fence belonging to the State in that area. In response to Mr. Smiths' <br />statement that, if the location of the buildings were changed it would give an <br />unfair advantage to one of them, Mr. Tallon responded that drivers must come in <br />off Country Club and both would be visible. He believed that this positioning <br />would integrate the parcel and would be more in keeping with the Mixed Use <br />District. He pointed out that originally the Mixed Use District did not include <br />free standing restaurants. Mr. Orlowski stated that C.P.C. agreed with him that <br />office /restaurant /office was not as acceptable as having the restaurants on the <br />corner, but this configuration will integrate the development. Mr. Smith agreed <br />to work something out. Mr. Papandreas stated that the physical aspect was only <br />one issue of integration, it also includes vehicular interface, landscaping, <br />setback, moundi.ng techniques, lighting, etc. He did not believed that the <br />= location of the buildings was uppermost, and explained that when the preliminary <br />land use plan was presented, there was no real feeling as to where the buildings <br />should be placed. One of their biggest concerns is to keep the curb cut as shown, <br />this is definite, it cannot be changed. Their numerous studies indicated that <br />this plan was the most preferable, if the locations are ehanged back to what was <br />presented in the preliminary plan setback variances would be needed. Mre Orlowski <br />suggested putting the buildings exactly the opposite of what C.P.C. had suggested <br />possibly having both restaurants face Country Club Boulevard. Mr. Smith responded <br />that this had been studied originally, however it did hirider visibility. He <br />pointed out that there are 100 foot setbacks, and in orcler to move it over to <br />accomnodate a direct access from the curb cut, a side yard variance might be <br />required for a future building (code requires 25 feet between builrlings, parking <br />lots, etc.) Mr. Papandreas stated that they needed more flexibility on the vacant <br />parcel. He explained that the curb cut must remain directly opposite the existing <br />Corporate Center cut and it could not be closer to Great Northern since as much <br />stacking area as possible is needed. Members did not agree that re-positioning <br />the buildings as suggested would hinder visibility and also pointed out that <br />there will be a sign on the corner. Mr. Smith stated that neither of these <br />restaurants are kmown here, and drivers on Great Northem would be past them <br />before they saw both restaurants. Mr. Thomas did not agree stating this looked <br />like what was along Lorain Road at present, and asked the developers to <br />reconsider the alternatives. Mr. Tallon stated that how it was done was up to <br />them, but the Commission was looking for physical integration ineluding internal <br />5