04/12/2006 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

R. Bolilmann seconcied the motion, which was unanimously approved. 2. Wild Mango Restaurant; #362 WEA Great Northern Mall: (V6'RD # 4) Proposal consists of relocating existing restaurant to the north east side of the mall. J. Lasko moved to approve the proposal for Wild Mango of #362 Great Northern'1bIal1, which consists of a new fa?acle with the following conclitions: 1. New plans are to be submitted depicting the modified building materials discussed. 2. The service area is to be cleaned and repaired where necessary. 3. Prior to an occupancy permit being issued, Westfield Corporation is to submit a master sign plan. 4. Westfield Corporation is to submit updated landscape plans as discussed. R. Bohlmann seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved. 3. DDIa MDT Great Northern; 26035-26437 Great Northern ShoppinLy Center: (WRD # 4) Proposal consists of replacing existing sidewalks and relocating 13 existing trees to new location. Ms. Wenger reported that the proposal had been turned down as a minor change request. The applicant proposes to remove 13 existing trees in the sidewalk area of the plaza and install new trees in the parking field. Originally, the applicant wished to install replacement trees on the south side of the plaza. However, in a pre-submission conference the City recommended that landscaping removed from the north area be replaced either in the same location or within the north plaza area. Mr. O'Malley advised that although the landscape plan is not tied to the development of a building the commission should start off by looking at what was originally approved as the owner is requesting to amend the plan which was approved. Mr. Hartman reviewed that Developers Diversified renovated the plaza in 1999. The worlc entailed new facades and sidewallcs, in the sidewallcs planters were installed and trees were planted. An engineering defect has allowed water to accumulate under the sidewalks and caused them to heave and create safety risks. They will now remove all the existing sidewallcs and replace them with new sidewalks with drains to eliminate the water gathering under them. The trees have not been doing well and the grates around the trees have become a risk factor. They propose to relocate the trees elsewhere in the center. Mr. Lasko said the commission would lilce to see the original landscape plans which were approved as the request is an amendment to the original submittal that was approved. He questioned if once the new sidewallcs were installed there would still be planters in the new sidewalks. Mr. Hartman said that the far (east) sidewallcs were already replaced and those planter boxes were kept in the sidewallcs. This proposal would relocate trees on the west end of the property into a number of traffic islands. Mr. Lasko questioned if the traffic islands were sized to accommodate the transplanted trees. Mr. Hartman said that it was not his first choice to place the trees in the traffic islands as they could obstruct traffic view or could become damaged by vehicles. Mr. Malone believed that the applicants were moving backwards by removing the trees from the sidewalks. If the beds are properly engineered the trees would thrive in the sidewalks. The justifications listed for removing the trees include ADA accessibility issues. However the applicant submitted pictures which shows shopping carts, palettes of items and trash receptacles along the sidewalks which contribute to the ADA accessibility issues. By 5