10/28/2003 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

diameter i.e. plant new trees equal in numbers elsewhere on the site. This would include the area scheduled to remain in its natural state along the northern perimeter of the site. Mr. Yager questioned what the distance would be from the neighboring residents if the proposed landbanked parking had to be developed and what would become of the burm. Mr. Berryhill indicated that it would then be a 75-foot setback, which is what is required by current codes. If the landbanked parking ever had to be developed the burm would then have to be moved in a northerly direction to accommodate the new parking spaces. However, they do not believe that the landbanked parking will ever be used. It is the developers belief that there is more than enough parking spaces for the site. Mrs. Hoff-smith questioned if there would in fact be balcony's for the residential units. Mr. Berryhill suggested that they are currently studying the balcony concept and if there are balcony's they would be interspersed throughout the three buildings. Mr. Yager questioned if upon the developer return to the Planning Commission there would be more descriptive plans presented. 1bIr. Berryhill suggested that if the Board of Zoning Appeals grants their variances they would submit detailed plans including material lists. Mr. Spalding questioned the status of the parcel owned along Columbia Road. Mr. Berryhill commented that the owners have agreed that the residential lot owned on Columbia Road will never be developed as an access road. There is also an agreement regarding Westview Drive land, it will never be developed or used as an access road to this site. Mrs. Hoff-Smith requested the building department review the variances required. Building Department comments and further concerns of the commission: Mr. Ryrnarczyk reviewed that the underground parking garage is shown 31-feet from the right- of-way and code requires 50-foot setback so a 19-foot variance is required. 1dIr. Spalding questioned if there would be turning lanes added to Brookpark Road at each of the entrances. Mr. Berryhill affirmed that there would be turning lanes added. Mr. Koeth remarked that the commission would like the applicants to return with new main entrance and complete plans. Mrs. Hoff-smith voiced that the entrance needed to be more defined regarding directing traffic and making sure pedestrians remain safe while walking. Mr. Berryhill believed that having defined lanes would create more problems on the site. There are sidewalks along the front of the site which will accommodate pedestrians. Mr. Spalding suggested extending the sidewalk pattern from building "B: to building "A". Mr. Berryhill agreed that it would improve the pedestrian traffic. Mr. Koeth suggested looking at removing the curb cut at building "A". Mr. Berryhill indicated that as they anticipate the heavy traffic to come from the mall area, the curb cut at building "A" is more of an exit for the site. Without the two additional curb cuts onto the site, the main entrance traffic would end up bottlenecked at the entrance. Mr. Lasko questioned how the applicants could assure the safety of the walking pedestrians during peak holiday seasons as they moved between the four buildings. Mr. Berryhill suggested that they had thought of creating a designated walk area with walk signs and stop signs coordinated to the main traffic signal. They could create old-fashion pedestrian red lights at the crosswalks. Mrs. Hoff-Smith again expressed her concern for the safety of the pedestrians as the sidewalks are very close to Brookpark Road not within a mall setting were traffic is moving at a slower pace. Mr. Hreha commented that due to the concerns there should be a traffic study as well as a pedestrian study done. There has to be some existing statistics currently out there on lifestyle areas similar to what is being proposed. Mr. Lasko voiced that the Planning Commissioners are concerned as they have seen the news coverage of what has happened at Legacy Village. Not only are there concerns over the loss of 1,000 parking spaces on the site there are also issues of were employees will be parking versus customers. The traffic flow in and out of the development itself is also in question. Legacy Village has had a distinct difference between what it is actually experiencing in actual pedestrian flow and what was predicted. Learning from past mistakes is better than repeating them. Mr. Berryhill suggested that he would look for publications on lifestyle centers to see what is there. What ever he finds, he will submit it to the Planning Commission for review. 5