04/07/2005 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Building Commissioner Conway indicated tha.t the plans received in member's packets required four variances; 1. A 6 foot variance for parking at west property line, (code requires 10', applicant shows 4'), section (1141.06). 2. A variance for not having 2-12' x 50' loading spaces (code requires 2- 12' x 50', applicant shows 1-12' x 18'), section (1161.13 (d)). New plans submitted seem to have eliminated these two variances. 3. A 62 foot variance for minimum distance of luminaire to residential, (code requires 115', applicant shows 53'), section (1161.12 (C)). When the plans first came before the City, the current lighting code had not been adopted and the applicants were nat required to comply with the current regulati+ons. However, there have been changes made to the light fixtures as they have been moved closer to the property line which requires current codes be followed. The current plans do not comply and still require a variance. 4. A 1.12 foot candle variance for illumination level, (code permits 5.0 fc, applicant shows 6.12 fc), section 1161.12 (c)). The new plans show a lighting level of 6.12 foot candle and code allows a maximum of 5.0 foot candle. He noted that he could only address lighting levels w}uch had been relocated. If the fiartures are relocated it would not require variatices. The applieant still needs to address the lighting layout to address foot candies. City Engineer Durbin is concerned with the driveways, which have a left turn out which creates a problem. The plans show a prohibition of left turns into the front pazking area from Brookpark Road. However, past experience shows drivers will try to make the turn. If the entrance was connected to a city street, code would require the driveway be 100 feet back from the right-o£ way line. The north drive which is now only two lanes was a 40-foot wide driveway wluch could handle all delivery trucks. However, the size of the current entry-drive could be a problem and may not be able to service the number of buildings. on the site. Building C is placed with a distance from the east wall to the back of the curb, roughly 20-feet and at one time it was 50-feet and appeazs to be a problem for snow removal. There are no handicap spaces shown on the new plans. He noted that once modified plans were approved the engineering departsnent would require a new set of storm water computations to make sure there is sufficient storage. Assistamt Law Director O'1VIa11ey thanked the Board & ComYnission members and each of the City Departments for their time and efforts working with the developer. The Engineering Department had been working hard with the applicants to keep the progress moving forward at the development site. He advised that approved development plans were not etched in stone. He advised ARB and PC members to apply the same codified standards and reasonableness that are applied to any plans they review. The Architectural Review Board will focus on the aesthetic structures, lighting type and landscaping to make their recommendations to the Planning Commission. Planning Commission has been provided checklists to assist them in going through codes to determine ways to advise the applicants on how to reduce or minimize adverse impacts that are identified based on evidence presented. The developer has tried to eliminate the need for variances and is encouraged to continue to eliminate a11 variances required. Applicants Presenta.tion: Mr. Rinker, the attorney for Carnegie thanked the staff and Law Department for setting the stage for the meeting. Parcel E has its own challenges, one being the panhandle configuration. Since last summer the owner has been tzying to construct and maintain the pace of the development on the site. Carnegie discovered that between the retailers having parldng constraints and the 3