Laserfiche WebLink
• Carnegie 1VIanagement & ]Development Corporation, 24642 25174 Brookpark Road <br />(Parcel E) (VVRD 4)• <br />The proposal consists of modifications to the approved Parcel E development plans. <br />Note: Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board tabled the proposal on 4-7- <br />05. The Architectural Review Board is scheduled to address the ppoposal again on 4-20- <br />05. <br />Prior to department reports commission member R. Bohlmann excused himself from <br />discussions pertaining to parcel E. <br />Department Reports: <br />Planning Director \T?lenger reviewed that the proposal consisted of asnendments to <br />previously approved plans, which were tabled April 7, 2005 at the joint Planning <br />Commission/Architectural Review Board meeting. The Board and Commission members <br />wanted the applicant to address the plaza areas proposed by improving the quality and <br />arrangement of the public spaces. Building C was to remaim as previously approved and <br />mirror the style of Building B. Applicants were instructed to make sure site lighting met <br />code requirements for both illumination levels and distances from rear property lines. <br />Building Elevations: <br />New building elevations were submitted showing the Architectural Review Boazds <br />direction to alter the north building elevation of Building D to break up the horizontal line <br />separating the first and second floors. <br />Li tin <br />Revised site lighting showed illumination levels within code, however, the pole heights <br />were 30-feet rather than 20-feet, and did not meet code. Carnegie was contacted and <br />reminded both Board and Commissions required light plans meet city codes. Applicant's <br />submitted new lighting plans which show pole heights of 20-feet and conforn to code. <br />Plaza Areas: <br />The Architectural Review Board recommended all plaza areas have decorative fencing, <br />posts, planters, landscaping, wrought iron tables, benches, bike racks and/or any alternative <br />a.nd combination of those items. Architeciural 1Zeview Board a.iso recommended a greater <br />mixture of landscaping apposed to plain areas of pressed concrete. Applicant's new plans <br />show an additional ten parking spaces removed, and although she recommended all spaces <br />adjacent to Building C be removed the Architectural Revaew Board felt some spaces should <br />be kept for handicapped access. The Architectural Review Boatd recoynmended the east <br />and west sides of Building B have less hard surfaGe sidewalks and mare green surface <br />areas. The current plans show the plaza on the west side has been reduced however, the <br />east side of building B has not. <br />Landscaping: <br />Although the new landscape plan reflects a number of landscape additions to the proposed <br />plaza areas. There were a number of substitution plants recommended by Mr. Zergott that <br />wotald be more appropriate for location and climate than those proppsed. She was not sure <br />whether or not those recommendations were addressed. The landscape plan shows <br />additional plantings along IVlitchell lZoad area, which includes 13 clusters of five trees each <br />in addition to what was originally proposed. Z'he Architectural Review Boazd felt the <br />originally approved 8-foot reta.ining wall would be unappealing and not easily maintained. <br />After viewing the site some of the ARB members felt there was little value in trying to <br />3