Laserfiche WebLink
approved than she would have liked to see. Mr. Gilmore indicated that he and Allan would <br />look at the whole development together and come back with better perspective with more <br />features without being to Disneyland like. He suggested that due to the ordinance they are <br />trying to make it look more like two separate buildings. Mr. Crook commented that it was <br />hard to swallow what they are being shown after seeing the first drawings. Ms. W enger <br />indicated that the plans now instead of being one big box it looks like two medium size boxes. <br />The first drawings gave the illusion of multiple storefronts and two medium size-looking <br />boxes are less desirable than the first big box. Mrs. Nader indicated that the entry was <br />lacking it just looks like a metal awning. <br />Residents comments: <br />Mr. Skoulis, president for the homeowners association voiced that there were about 125 <br />homes in the development, which abuts the lot. He liates the plans that are being shown and <br />the best thing that could be done with them is stick them in a barrel and burn them. The <br />residents are under the belief that the applicant was going before the Architectural Review <br />Board to just find out how they could tweak the original drawings that were preliminarily <br />approved. Therefore, the variances would not be so severe. The applicants keep changing <br />their submittals, what is being presented is not what the residents approved at their association <br />meeting in June when Mr. Berryhill met with them. All the residents met, voted, and were <br />assured that what they were seeing is what the applicants are going to build. Although they <br />are not happy with everything they were willing to work with the applicants as they liked <br />what was being presented, and this is not in any way what they were shown. The residents <br />have only agreed to be open to the preliminary drawing that was submitted earlier. Mr. <br />Skoulis remarked that what they are preseriting tonight needs to be thrown out we will never <br />agree to this. Mr. Zergott agreed with Mr. Skoulis. Mr. Skoulis reviewed that the first plans <br />had three two-story buildings then at Planning Commission it turned into two three-story and <br />one two-story building. Tonight the applicants are showing three three-story buildings. He <br />questioned why Mr. Berryhill keeps changing the plans. Mr. Renzi suggested that it would <br />be a terrible idea to burn the current plans. This is a revolution, a style, or an idea and it takes <br />several steps to go from the first drawing to reality. All they are saying is between the steps <br />they are looking for input, this board gave up the same response, and they will comply. The <br />style is in line with the renderings, the cornice work, windows, dimensions are all Western <br />Reserve looks, they just need to bring back some of the rooflines. Mr. Skoulis remarked that <br />if the applicants bring this to Planning Commission their residents will be there to voice their <br />objections. Mr. Renzi suggested that they had no intentions of bring these plans back but <br />they did get good input and understand what direction they need to go in and they will. Mr. <br />Skoulis questioned what was wrong with Mr. Berryhill submitting something such as what <br />they did. Mr. Berryhill suggested that they are not sure what the Architectural Review Board <br />wanted to see or what they would like. They could have said the first drawings looked like <br />Disneyland, we have now heard what they wanted, and as 'this moves along it will change. He <br />believes that Planning Commission is looking for ways to keep the big-box store from looking <br />so massive. Mr. Skoulis questioned if it was the intent of the applicant to stick to the current <br />design and change as little as possible. Mr. Berryhill believed that Architectural Review <br />Board wants as close of a design as possible adding elements back into the plan. There will <br />be another Architectural Review Board meeting for this plan. Mr. Barnett voiced that the <br />entrance to the Target store is not symmetrical "nor" does it flow with the rest of the site. It <br />will be hard for pedestrians to find the entrance. The entrance should be located in the middle <br />of the building and towers and fagade changes could be used to bring the pedestrians to the <br />entrance. Mr. Gilmore suggested that they have entrances at one end or another, as it is <br />important to control the flow of the customers to move merchandize. If they do not show their <br />merchandize and control the flow, they can not cell the product. Mr. Barnett suggested that <br />5