09/27/1994 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

t- , , some of the information requested by the Commission. He advised that the floor elevation of the building has been reduced from 767 to 763.5 which is the median elevation between Mill and Lorain Roads, and that roughly half of the site will remain at grade which will reduce the scale of the bu.ilding from the adjacent properties, and will make the screening and buffering more effective. In order to do this they will have to go to a more expensive storm water pwnp system to meet the city's existing system They will be installing signage, quoting the city ordinances, which limits truck activity in the rear. Basically they have doubled the landscaping and now have one tree for every 3 parking. spaces. He clarified that this did not include the 74 landbanked, so Mr. Thomas concluded that the ratio was not increased as dramatically as it would appear. The entrance drive has been widened to allow for the cars to merge more easily; the 32 foot parapets have been lowered to 30 feet, and the tower was lowered from 37 down to 35 but since the tower is the signatures of the home appliance store that did present a problem. They have landbanked all the parldng shown on the west'side of the proposal and a predominate portion of that was shown on the north side, adjacent to Mill Road. The mound was doubled in height from 4 feet to 8 feet, and is roughly 40 feet wide (somewhat larger to the south). The curb cut between McDonald's and their property is shown more clearly on the plans and does not interfere with McDonald's parldng at all. The new site plans show existing elevations, the existing adjacent curb cuts, and existing buildings. With 74 parldng spaces landbanked, they now have 870 parldng spaces are shown. He clarified that the spaces shown with the dotted lines are to be landbanked. Mrs. O'Rou.rke questioned the need 'for 870 parldng spaces single use stores: Mr. Papandreas explained that they were trying to establish a parking ratio of 5 spaces for 1,000, the code calls for 6.5 per 1,000. Their lessees have indicated that they prefer that ratio, but he does not believe that is a reflection of the number of cars coming into the center, but is to insure that, under any contingency situation, they would have sufficient parking and this would also preclude any out- parcel development since there was a concern about visibility. Mr. Papandreas wondered why there was concern over the number of parldng spaces. Mrs. O'Rourke stated that this seemed excessive for a neighborhood shopping center and Mr. Thomas questioned the description of tlus proposal as a`4ieighborhood" shopping center. Mr. Papandreas responded that his use of that term at the last meeting was basically to distinguish between this type of a shopping center and a large volu.me discou.nt retail superstore. Mr. Thomas stated that his perception of the differences was based on 175,000 square feet of retail versus 145,000 square feet of retail, that the parking spaces were just about the same, and that the proposed traffic generated would only be about a.6 car per difference between the two. Mr. Papandreas disputed the last figure, and responded that Mr. Thomas had apparently seen tlus as 175,000 of high volume retail and his response was to define this as a category type center which, with this configuration, would not be conducive to a high volume shopping center and is totally against any desigu parameters which would allow this to become this type of center without reconfiguring the building. The members had also been concerned that, by combining two stores, this could become a superstore, but an opinion has been written that this could not be done. Mr. Thomas stated that there are always things that happen in the future that the Commission cannot control,, and they have to think about the worst case. Mr. Papandreas again explained that if this were to be changed from a category type shopping center with this type configuration, they would have to come before the Commission to make the changes, and if a smaller tenant were to come in, and at the very least, they would loose the square footage at the back of the center. W. Thomas noted that in that instances they would probably again bring in their attorneys to advise that they have a right to use their properiy. Mr. 3