12/04/2003 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Berryhill himself explained, they need something like that to drive this property, and they did ask Target to split it into 2 buildings. They wanted new ideas to equal that square footage to meet the city code. That is one of the things they are questioning. Mr. Skoulis said they had suggested that in the middle of this big box store they put a hallway or atrium so that it could be two buildings under one roof. He said that according to the Building Commissioner it would still be a big box store. Mrs. Diver said the idea of an atrium or breezeway would constitute still the continuity of one building. Mr. McKay asked if Target is agreeable to the fagade that they looked at. Mr. Berryhill said yes, they are. After the Planning Commission meeting, Target saw the direction the city wants the building to go in and they know the administration is in favor of the original concept. Mr. Berryhill said they are not deviating from that plan. They know if they want to get approval they have to subscribe to the plan. Mr. McKay said they do not want to give approval for the variances and then have someone come in with something different. Mr. Berryhill said the Planning Commission still has the purview to approve or deny the request, as does the Architectural Review Board with the architectural stylings. Mr. Skoulis asked if approval of the front of the Target building came from Target management or from a representative. Mr. Berryhill said it came from the representative in discussion with Target management itself. He said Target realizes that if they want to be in this community, they have to get as close to that rendering, and be acceptable to the Architectural Review Board, Planning Commission and the residents, as they possibly can. Mr. Kelly asked where the exception area is on the rendering. Mr. Berryhill referred to the plan and said it looks like another entry drive and with being so close to Brookpark, they are afraid people will park in the wrong area. They want to de-emphasize that to make it look like smaller storefronts. Mr. Skoulis said he does not understand why Target chose an entrance all the way down on one end of the building away from the parking. Mr. Berryhill said it is an operational issue and studies have been done. Mrs. Sergi asked if there will be a traffic study. Mr. Berryhill replied there is money in escrow for the study. They are waiting for action by Council, which should be submitted to Council in the next couple of weeks. Mr. O'Malley said the developer has had $10,000 on deposit for nearly a year for the traffic study. He said they will no doubt be invited, encouraged by the Planning Commission, to spend additional money depending on what the traffic study shows. Mr. Skoulis asked if a traffic study will be combined with the Rockwynd development. Mr. O'Malley said he believes the Rockwynd study was done in-house by the traffic engineer and he concluded there would be no significant impact from that development. There were several small group discussions being carried on at this time. Mr. Maloney asked W. Conway if the atrium square footage is included in the residential calculations. Mr. Berryhill said they are referring to the plaza area and it is open space. He said there will be bridges going across but they have not calculated the square footage of those bridges. Mrs. Diver asked if it will be covered. Mr. Berryhill said it is open space and there will be natural sunlight. Mr. Maloney asked if the letter Mr. Berryhill submitted has gone to the Mayor. Mr. Berryhill said it went to Mr. O'Malley at this point for him to deliver it to the Mayor. Final Comments Mr. O'Malley said he would recommend that if the board is entertaining a motion to approve the variances as they are outlined in requests 1-4, he would recommend the approval be conditioned upon the items in the letter. He would offer some comments and amendments to them. He said the list of 14 items the developer has offered as a commitment could be imposed by the Board of Zoning Appeals as a condition of approval for these variances. The variances would only be valid if the conditions are met, so that the variance is tied to satisfaction of the commission. The Planning Commission process and Council approval has yet to be completed and Planning handles a lot of these items. He said most of the conditions are directly related to the variances the applicant is requesting. He said under item #12, the setback variance is for the underground parking garage and not for any other structures. He would say the same thing for the underground parking garage building massing. He said variance #3 is for an underground parking garage so in item #12, in addition to the setback variance, the underground parking garage massing variance would be limited to the underground parking garage. There is a slight adjustment to #12. He said in almost every single item, the preface is, "we intend" or "we will agree to." He said that kind of language has no place in the board's motion to approve the variances on the 10