Laserfiche WebLink
into the pa.rcel is so far away fr( <br />pedestrians would have to walk througY <br />there is a significant grade differenc <br />and entrance ratnp as well as an op <br />limitations as to ohlere they could p: <br />that the sideVaallc should be close t( <br />reference to a crosswalk between the 1 <br />be used since these two separate re <br />portions of the parcel are not devel( <br />options of adding the crosswalk bet? <br />parcel is developed since there could <br />that the parlcing would not be contigu <br />of landscaping between parcels, ani <br />criteria it must be a 4 foot high m <br />parking. Mr. Thorias stated that thi; <br />and these restaurants axe to servi:ce t <br />the impression that they are treating <br />pointed out that these crosswalks are <br />Gorris agreed that there should be son <br />that this could be going too far. N <br />bettaeen the two parking lots and tY <br />members agreed this would be satisfact <br />this proposal would be in keeping witY <br />rq the restaulcants, and pointed out that <br />the parking lot. Mr. Smith responaed that <br />e on Great Northern because of the overpass <br />n inlet for the drainage, so there were <br />ace the sidewalk. Mr. Thorias pointed out <br />a crosswalk after one is designated. In <br />wo restaurants, P7r. Smith do-gbts it would_ <br />staurants, not nightclubs, and the other <br />ped. Mr. Thomas tiaould like to retai:n the <br />een the two buildings once the.contiguous <br />be shared parking. T1r. Papandreas responded <br />)us, since by code there nust be a 25 feet <br />I by Great NOrthern's raaster development <br />)und, which riight be compatible for cross <br />is supposed to be a cohesive development, <br />he whole development, and he has been given <br />this as an individual development. 3t was <br />only painted areas in the parking lot. 14r. <br />e pedestrian crosswalks, but was concerned <br />r. Smith suggested that putting in a link <br />en down to the parking lot islands. The <br />ory. The C.P.C. had previously stated that <br />the rtixed Use codes, however, Mr. Schultz <br />suggested prohibiting additional free stancling restaurants on tne daiance os zne <br />parcel. Yjr. Thomas still ha.s concerns about integrating this parcel. Mr. Morgan <br />questioned if there should be any more retail on this parcel at all since this <br />development is basically retail. Mr. Smith asked that, since they are going to <br />incur some loss of revenue with the re-positioning of the restaurants, the <br />Co= * ssion recommend to the Board of Zoning Appeals that a variance be granted <br />for their signs since the restaurant wi:ll not be as visible. Mr. Thomas believed <br />that this raght set a precedent for other developers and Mr. Gorris explained <br />that the buildings were repositioned in order to aehieve the integration of the <br />paxcel since it is zoned Mixed Use, not General Retail. The members studied the <br />sign roposal. Building Corrnnissioner ConTvay advised that the code only allows one <br />wall sign, and there are 2 proposed for Rorano' s and 1 for Chili' s, he pointed <br />out that the Board of Zoning Appeals has granted variances in the past when a <br />property has visibility from 2 streets and believed that is how the Commission <br />should look at the signage. The Architectural Review I3oard had approved the signs <br />in concept. N`ir. Gorris believed that the B.Z.A. should malte its own decision. Mr. <br />OrlotJSki thought the handicapped parking spaces should be closer to the <br />entrances. Even though there is no fu11 scale site plan showing handicapped <br />parking, the members agreed that they could approve the proposal. 14r. Thomas <br />stated that the entire background of the Chili's sign should be considered as <br />part of the sign. It was decided to make two separate motions, one for the <br />building proposal, and one to make a recommendation to the Board of Zoning <br />Appeals. T. Morgan moved to approve the Chili`s Restaurant and Romano's Macaroni <br />Grill, sublot 1 of parcel "B", south side of Country Club and.east of Great <br />Northern Boulevard, z%-ith the position of the restaurants as shown on the site <br />plan presented tonight contingent upon the final plan meeting code, including a11 <br />the recommendations of the Architeetural Review Board, the striping of the <br />parking lot from the entrance on Country Club Boulevard to Romano's 14acaroni <br />Grill being incorporated; with the developer showing integration of the walkway <br />between both restaurants, with the handicapped spaces in the proximity of the <br />front.entrances of both restaurants; the Comnission also suggests striping the <br />5