Laserfiche WebLink
R. Koeth moved to table Smokey Bones of 25785 Brookpark Road which is to be sent to the <br />Board of Zoning Appeals with the above recommendations and to the Architectural Review <br />Board for their recommendations. R. Bohlmann seconded the motion, which was <br />unanimously approved. Note: the clerk advised the applicants that they were scheduled to <br />go before the Architeetural Review Board on iv1ay 18, 2005 at 5:30 p.m. and that no further <br />notices would be sent out. <br />• Carpet & Tile I,iguidators, 28597 Loraux Roade (WRD 3) <br />Proposal consists of demolishing existing building and consiructing a new 21,190 square foot <br />building. <br />Department Reports; <br />1VIs. Wenger reviewed that the proposal consisted of demolishing an existing residential <br />home and replacing it with a new commercial building approximately 21,190 square feet. <br />"The applicants met with City staff and attended a pre-submission conference on April 7, <br />2005. The following were recommendations made at the conference: <br />• Landbank significant percenta.ge of required parking to preserve trees and minimize paved <br />surface. <br />• Recommend meeting with the City Forester to identify locations of best trees to preserve. <br />• Screen front loading area from view with landscaping. <br />• Consider modifications to rear loading dock area to minimize paved surface. <br />• Limit site to one main entrance/exit. <br />o Indicate that landscaping will be irrigated. <br />Based upon the current plans submitted, a number of variances would be required, some of <br />which should be eliminated. She recommended the proposal be discussed, tabled and <br />forwarded to the Architectural Review Board and Board of Zoning Appeals with <br />recommendations. <br />Mr. Rymarczyk reviewed that the applicants are require to have 66 parking spaces, they show <br />landbank parking, but fall short by 2 parking spaces which could easily be added. No <br />photometric plan has been subxraitted nor eut sheets for building fixtures. Applicants do not <br />show irrigation which would require a variance if they do not wish to irrigate the site. <br />Regarding signage applicants require 5 different variances similar to that of the last <br />applicants. The width of the access drive requires a variance as code allows a maximum 24- <br />foot width and applicants show one 29-foot wide clrive. However, Planning Commission can <br />grant the applicants approval to have only one access drive. 'Y'he applicants apron radius is <br />shown at about 10-foot, code requires 25-feet, but the City Engineering can approve the <br />apron radius. He advised that the applicants had not made application to go before the Board <br />af Zoning Appeals nor the Architectural Review Board. <br />Mr. Durbin indicated that he only received the plans earlier in the day therefore did not have <br />an opportunity to review the plans. The radius of the driveway to accommodate semi trucks <br />would have to be larger. The plan looks to ha.ve a site distance issue with the right of way <br />line. The sidewalk right of way and required brickscape is not shown. There is a power line <br />pole which is not shown on the plan. The storm water storage looks to be considerable and <br />may not be installed within flood plain and the rear property is within the 100 year flood <br />plain. <br />Mr. O'Malley advised Planning Commission that it was within their authority to wave or <br />make concessions regarding landbank parking or the number of access drives. However, the <br />other items requiring variances the Commission needed to make recommendations on and <br />9 <br />?