Laserfiche WebLink
The applicant has revised plans and removed the parking shown in the area behind the strip plaza as <br />well as the neon rope lighting. <br />Parking was unresolved at the last meeting. Two issues were sufficiency of parking and parking lot <br />circulation. Planning Commission was divided in whether or not to look at parking lot issues at this <br />time or wait until the vacant building came before the Commission for approval. Large commercial <br />developments are required between 5-6 spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area according to the <br />Zoning Code. City staff has recommended the higher end of the range given the vacancies and future <br />unknowns in the plaza area. In order to meet the higher end of the range, it is recommended to show <br />261andbanked parking spaces along the one way aisle adjacent to the planting island. This will help <br />this and future applicants meet parking demand while not requiring immediate action to reconfigure <br />the lot. <br />Mr. Rymarczyk reviewed signage variances with the Commission, namely more than one wall sign, <br />total wall signage exceeding maximum allowed, two additional ground signs, proximity of ground <br />signs to each other, and total signage exceeding maximum allowed. He also indicated that the <br />applicant could show landbanked parking to eliminate the parking variance. <br />Mr. Durbin said that the Engineering Department had no problems with the plans. <br />Mr. O'Malley said previously this property had been thP subject of litigation. The proposed changes <br />don't affect the site plan that was approved through the litigation. <br />Mr. Kevin Morand, architect, indicated that after meeting with ARB they have incorporated several <br />changes to the plan. They removed the "Grill and Chill" portion of the sign on the east side of <br />building above drive through. The ARB also required the applicant to remove the neon on the <br />building. They recommended placing a shadow line on the EIFS near the top of the building on the <br />east, south and west sides of the building and preserving the easternmost tree in the front based on <br />input from their landscaper. <br />Ms. Hoff-Smith commented that the west elevation is more attractive than the east elevation. Mr. <br />Morand indicated that one accommodates pedestrians and the other accommodates cars. <br />Mr. Spalding asked why there are no awnings over the take out window. Mr. Morand indicated that <br />the roof extends over it and the small canopy projects out from the wall. Cars traveling through the <br />area could make it dangerous. <br />Mr. Bohlmann questioned the amount of EIFS proposed on the building, given that it is currently all <br />brick. Todd Romp, the owner, stated that they are looking for a sharper new image. Mr. Morand said <br />the EIFS is roughly 50% of the east elevation with 3' stone wainscote. Even though there is stone on <br />the bottom, Mr. Bohlmann suggested it could be broken up more with stone. Commission members <br />discussed possible ways to reduce the amount of EIFS. Mr. Morand said there are a number of <br />materials being used such as metal, EIFS, stone, awnings, metal canopy and he felt another material <br />would malce it too busy. Additional detail has been added to break up the building, including stone <br />wainscoting, false windows, and awnings. EIFS was wrapped around the stone piers on the baclc of <br />the building and a shadow line was added 3' from the roof. <br />2