Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Wenger reviewed that current codes permit large developments to have a range of parking <br />calculated between 5 and 6 per 1,000 square feet. The applicant's plans do not meet 6 but are <br />above 5, and it is up to the Planning Commission to make recommendations on what they feel <br />would be appropriate parking. She noted that there was enough room on the site to <br />accommodate more pazking if the Commission so choose. It was also noted that neon rope <br />lighting shown on the plans are included in the signage write-ups. There was also a preview <br />board sign shown on the site plan, but no details were provided. <br />Mr. Durbin reported plans were missing storm water drainage from the highpoint of the Lorain <br />Road sidewalk towards the building. The existing landscape area intercepts much of the storm <br />water. The proposed patio would increase the impervious area in front of the building, as the <br />landscaping would no longer intercept the water flow. The appiicants need to submit drainage <br />system plans showing how they would handle the draining of that water. Engineering also still <br />requires the utility and grading plans and other construction details. <br />Mr. O'Malley described the history of the development of the pazcel. He reviewed that there <br />was a home on the lot and at some point the home was removed, but the land was still zoned <br />residential along the southerly section of the parcel. In the mid 80's the owners proposed and <br />Planning Commission approved a consolidation of all their lots. Although the residential land <br />was consolidated with the commercial land, the petition to rezone the residential land was denied <br />by the city. Romp Realty then sued the City and the zoning was found unconstitutionai. In 1988 <br />a seitlement agreement was made to allow the properly to be developed commercially. That plan <br />showed the 15 spaces along the southerly border of the property near Columbia Road, but did not <br />show the 13 spaces or any other spaces which could now be shown iu the residential azea. Mr. <br />O'Malley advised the Commission fihat although the Dairy Queen was being addressed at this <br />time the commission should remember that the entire site was before them. <br />Mr. Moran, the architect, reviewed that the owners would Iike to remodel the existing Dairy <br />Queen in line with the new image proposed by the Dairy Queen Corporation. The proposal is to <br />re-skin the exterior of the building, eliminate the mansard roof and replace it with a pitched roof. <br />Sections of the walls would be extended vertically upwazd. The square footage of the building <br />would be reduced as the existing greenhouse front is to be removed, which would increase the <br />setback from Lorain Road an additional 8 or 9 feet. The patio area would be replaced with new <br />paving, landscaping, fencing, ornamental lighting, and irrigation system. The inside of the <br />building would also be remodeled as well to assure the building would be 100% handicap <br />accessible. The landscaping for the new patio would be at a slightly higher elevation then the <br />patio. Tiiey would submit engineering details showing the drainage for the improvements. The <br />applicants submitted color photos of other Dairy Queen builciings for reference. <br />Mr. Yager said based upon the pre-submission meeting, the applicants incorporated a landscape <br />isiand between the drive-thru and building. Ali four sides of the building are to be refaced. <br />However, the back wall could use more detail as patrons azrive at the building from the back. <br />The patio submitted is very nice and there is to be a waterfall theme. The mixture of brick and <br />stone on the building as well as the canopies are well proportioned. The biggest issue is the neon <br />rope lighting around the building which Planning Commission has always discouraged. <br />Commission members agreed that they did not want neon rope lighting. Mr. Spalding <br />questioned if the planner had any thoughts on the use of EIFS on the building. Ms. Wenger <br />advised that the ARB architect tried to encourage the use of more natural bricks as the city is <br />trying to move towazds more natural materials, but it would not aestheticaliy blend into the <br />applicants color scheme. However, there would be no EIFS at ground levelto imsure the EIFS <br />would not come into direct contact with the weather elements. <br />5