04/07/2005 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

in parking spaces was achieved by reducing landscaping and public spaces_ The buffer area behind Buildings C and D adjacent to the Linda Drive properties remains approximately the same depth. However, the applicant proposes to remove the once proposed retaining wall, and extend the mound over the length of the buffer area. This would result in moving the fence closer to the residential property line, reducing the distance betvveen the foot of the mound and the property line, and the loss of the remaining trees in the area. A previous plan amendment added a gate between the end of the fence and the fence on the adjacent commercial property. The revised plans do not show this gate in the correct location. As ODOT denied a second curb cut for the property, all traffic must funnel in and out of the site through one central main access point. In the approved version, there is a single way to access the western portion of the site, which is behind or north of the buildings. In the modified version, there are two points of access to the panhandle area, both in front of and behind the building. The south access point is within 80 feet of the right-of-way for Brookpark Road. The applicant has further proposed a break in the center median of the main entry to allow vehicles south of Buildings C and D) to loop back into the site, cutting across two lanes of outgoing traffic and one lane of incoming traffic. She requested the applicant provide more information from a traffic/engineering professional as to the suitability of the design. Ms. Lynn Egensperger from Oxbow Engineering sent her a brief communication sta.ting she felt the left turn would not be a problem and would be used minunally. She called Ms. Egensperger to ask if she was provided copies of the traffic study including traffic volumes or the approved site plan, and found she had received neither. Overall, Ms. Wenger was still not comfortable with the revised main entrance. The development plan was approved and variances were granted in large part due to the type of dynamic, pedestrian-friendly, lifestyle center environment that was proposed. This environment was characterized by an active public space along the frontage of the site with high quality landscaping and building design. The proposed amendments reduce the overall appeal of the project by creating a strip center environment. Several significant changes have been proposed which have impacted the effectiveness of the design. • There is proposed parking in the front of Buildings C and D. • T'he atrium between Buildings C and D has been removed. s The central pedestrian plaza has been modified and separated from Building C by parking and a two way access drive. • The front buffer area consisting of landscaping and streetscape elements have been reduced. The applicant has made some effort to screen the parking with an (18") mound and hedgerow. The City has asked Carnegie to consider keeping Building C at its current location to improve botla the streetscape effect, as well as solve traffic cixculation and access issues. While the depth of the buffer area along Linda Drive has not been reduced, the configuration of the mound and fence has been altered with the removal of the retaining wall, thereby incorporating the majority of tflie buffer area into the mouud and instead of nearly 40 feet before the base of the mound, there is now about 10 feet. Extending the area consumed by the mound will also result in the loss of a dozen or more trees, as described in the City Forester's memo dated April 7t'. She does not support the proposed modification to the buffer area behind Linda Drive. Additional landscaping and publie space has been reduced on the westem panhandle to accommodate more parking. Carnegie was prevaously granted a variance for less than required parking however she feels that Carnegie could compensate for the loss of axea by improving quantiTy and quality in its landscaping proposal. 2