09/13/2006 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Lasko asked if there were additional plant substitutions or modifications Mr. Malone would like to see along the southwest corner. Mr. Malone felt that the area needing the most help was the mound along the back as there are expansive areas which are barren. If he was going to add to the site he would add to the rear mounds. Mr. Yager felt that once the three outer buildings were constructed the rear mound and massive wall/fence would not look as barren. He felt the most effort should be made along the front of the buildings that face Brookpark Road. Ms. Wenger said that due to the complexity of the recommendations made the applicant should make the changes to the plans and resubmit them to the city. Mr. Khouri voiced a frustration of having to submit more plans. Ms. Wenger advised that every applicant which goes before the city is required to have an accurate landscaping plan which can be enforced, yet Mr. Khouri is asking the city to not require them to provide what is expected of every other applicant which goes before the city. Mr. Lasko said that all delays incurred during the history of the project were strictly due to the owner's changes, not the city. Unless there are comprehensive plans submitted he does not see how the commission could make a recommendation. Mr. Muller said he would like to have the Commission approve the as-built plans as a first phase and address the changes in a second phase plan. He prefers to meet with Mr. Malone at the site for him to tell him what he would like done for the second phase. Mr. Malone was frustrated that the city was being agreeable on 90% of the changes made and trying to be flexible while only asking for an accurate landscape plan. The applicants are refusing to be flexible in any way, even though they deviated from the approved plans which resulted in the position they are in now. Mr. O'Malley advised that using the word phase is not a good idea as the site was not approved or addressed as phases. There has to be a comprehensive plan which shows what is being done and then approved so the building department can go to the site and observe if what was approved is being completed. The applicants have the option of modifying the site to meeting the originally approved plans as shown or they can follow the recommendations of Mr. Malone and the only way to finalize that issue is to submit a comprehensive set of plans. J. Lasko moved to table the proposal for North Olmsted Town Center (Parcel-E) of 24642-25174 Brookpark Road which consists of landscaping alterations until a comprehensive landscape plan is submitted based upon the comments of the aneeting. G.1Vlalone seconded the motion, which was unanimously approvecl (1Vir. Bohlmann abstainecl). V. NEW BUSINESS: 1. Great Northern Mall (H&M); 270 Great Northern Mall: (WRD # 4) Proposal consists of fagade renovations and minor site improvements for new tenant. Ms. Wenger reported that the proposal consisted of the final phase of refacing the north side of Great Northern Mall. The tenant would be located in the former TGI Friday's space. Like Archivers and Wild Mango, the applicant proposes to create a storefront look to the area. However, this store will include internal access to and from the mall. The storefront will be comprised of a combination of stone, EIFS and glass. In addition to the H&M space, Westfield proposes to make some changes to the loading dock area. They propose to remove the existing screen walls and construct new walls further baclc flush with the new H&M storefront. The EIFS will also be wrapped around the east side of the building into the dock area. She had recoimnended that the Archivers wall treatment wrap the corner into the dock area, but does not believe it was incorporated into the plans. New landscaping is proposed both in front of the 6