12/04/2003 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

condition that the applicant meets certain criteria. It is not about intentions. He said the motion must be very specific. Mr. O'Malley came forward and reviewed the wording with the board members. He said with regard to item #12, he is referring not only to the setback variance for the underground garage but the building massing variance for the underground parking garage. He said variance request #3 is for that and only that. If the board conditions the approval of all of the variances on the list of 14 items as outlined, it would lock the developer into the promises that he has so generously made. Mr. Maloney asked if Mr. Berryhill is agreeable to that. Mr. Berryhill indicated he can agree with that. Mrs. Sergi asked for clarification on some of the square footage calculations. Mr. Berryhill reviewed the drawing with her. Mr. Skoulis said they are encouraged by what they have heard so far tonight but he does not think Mr. Berryhill is asking for enough variances. He said he went over the layout and came up with at least 8 variances. There are 2 restrictions to building a big box store on Parcel E. Mr. O'Malley interjected to point out the Building Commissioner addresses the write up. He does not want to discourage Mr. Skoulis from making substantive comments on the plans or his opinions known but whether or not a variance is required is in the opinion of the Building Commissioner. The board should take its advice from the Building Commissioner as to the variances required. He is the one that interprets the code. He added that a resident has every right to bring to the board's attention any matter as it relates to the plan or relates to the variance, or any issues he/she perceives, but the Building Commissioner determines whether a variance is necessary. Mr. Maloney said they can only act on the 4 variances requested and if any other variances are required, Mr. Berryhill will have to come back because he is going to the Planning Commission once again. Mr. Skoulis asked if they are saying he must wait until the proposal goes back to Planning to bring up the issues. Mr. O'Malley said he is not saying that at all. He said the board always hears from residents as to their concerns, their observations, whatever it is they have on their minds. Obviously Mr. Skoulis has been intimately involved in the review of this matter and his comments have always been extremely on point and well founded. He absolutely should be heard. Mr. IVlaloney said W. Skoulis can make mention of the four recommendations he was talking about and they will be placed in the minutes and the Building _ Commissioner can look at them. Mr. Skoulis said Ordinance 93-140 stops a big box from being built on the land. He reviewed the ordinance as it pertains to Parcel E. He believes a variance will be required and W. Berryhill should apply for it. He asked how many retail buildings will be 3 stories. At one time, it was 2 of the buildings, and now he understands a113 of the buildings will be 3 stories. Mr. Berryhill said all 3 of the buildings will potentially be 3 stories. Mr. Skoulis said there should be an additional height variance request. There was discussion about the height of the Target store. Mr. Conway pointed out the applicant has asked for 1 height variance and asked Mr. Skoulis what his other issue is. Mr. Skoulis indicated he is also concerned about the ratio of retail to residential. The Mixed- Use D calls for a 50/50 ratio. Mr. Conway said the applicant exceeds that ratio. Mr. Skoulis said the applicant said he is giving a 100 foot setback. That is true in 2 of the 3 residential areas that abut this property but on the third area, between the back line property of Linda Drive and the beginning of their development it is only 49 feet. Mrs. Sergi asked if that is from the fence to the back of their parking lot. Mr. Skoulis said it is from the beginning of their development. Mr. Berryhill said the setback is from the building and what Mr. Skoulis is referring to is the landscape buffer. He added they are in compliance on that one. Mr. Skoulis said another setback reference he saw in the Mixed-Use D is the buildings have to be at least 75 feet from abutting street lines and he does not think the distance between Brookpark and the front of those buildings is 75 feet. Mr. Berryhill said that is not correct and they are in excess of 75 feet. Mr. Skoulis said off street parking has to be at least 50 feet from residential property and he is not sure that applies behind Linda Drive. Mr. O'Malley said that Mr. Skoulis raised a good point on the height variance. There is a 36 foot height limit with a 9 foot variance, which primarily was designed to allow for the 3 story combination retail/multiple dwelling facilities. The Architectural Review Board, in looking at the renderings and in order to accomplish some of the towers , and roofline features, encouraged the developer not to sacrifice the architectural features to come within the height limitations. That is not to suggest that the Target store is necessarily going to be 45 feet tall. The board, if it chose to add to the list of limiting conditions, might want to restrict the height of the 11