Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. O'1VIalley encouraged Planning Commission to refer the proposal to the Architectural Review <br />Board for their comments and ask them to put in writing what they are willing to commit to. They <br />are talking about the garden sales only which suggest the trailers are going to stay. If everything is <br />in writing it makes it easier to enforce. Mr. Rymarczyk reminded the commission that anything <br />they want the building department to enforce would have to be stated in the motion. <br />W. Spalding motioned to table Wal Mart I)epartment Store No: 2316: 24801 Brookpark Road <br />the proposal is referred to the Architectural Review Boapd for their review. As Mr. O'Malley <br />and some of the commissioners have requested, Wal Mart needs to record tlaeir commitment to <br />the commission regarding what Wal 1Vlart will do to address the issues raised of trash <br />throughout the parking lot. Wal Marts commitment for the trash receptacles in the parking <br />lot and address the storage trailers. S. Hoff-Smith seconded the motaon, which was <br />unanimously approved. The clerk announced that the applicants would meet with the Architectural <br />Review Board on June 18, 2003 at 5:30 p.m. then return to Planning Commission on June 24, 2003 <br />and no further notices would be released. <br />3. Jared The Galleria of Jewelrv; PP# 235-28-003 Great leTorthern Mall <br />Proposal consists of constructing a new 5,700 square foot building. Note: Variances will be <br />required. <br />Acting Chairman Spalding called all interested parties forward to review the proposal. Mr. <br />Macintosh, with Westfield Corporation, and Mr. Greenberger from 5terling Jewelers were present to <br />present the proposal. <br />Applicants Presentation: <br />Mr. Greenberger indicated that each board member should have received a brochure, color <br />renderings, landscaping plan, site development plans, and elevation plans of all four sides of the <br />building. The proposed store will face Brookpark Road and all four sides of this store have been <br />designed to be a four-face farade. The two issues noted by the building department requiring <br />variances are an additional sign for the side of the building that faces into the mall and the other is <br />the parking lot lighting. They have submitted new lighting plans as lighting codes had changed. As <br />the mall manager stated, the site was previously approved to be developed as retail use. They would <br />like Planning Commission approval and recommendation to the Architectural Review Board for <br />their approval. They would like to have the store open by this Thanks Giving season. <br />Board Members Comments and Concerns: <br />1VIrs. Hoff-Smith questioned if the lights required a height variance. Mr. Greenberger suggested <br />that the light poles are sized to meet the height limitations of the mall, which is 21-feet and they have <br />stayed within those limits. There will be quite a bit of landscaping added to the site. There will also <br />be a complete irrigation system to maintain the landscaping. Mr. Rymarczyk questioned if the <br />entire site would be irrigated or just the new landscape beds. Mr. Greenberger indicated that they <br />would not be irrigating the existing area to the north, as no landscaping will be added. Mr. <br />Rymarczyk informed the applicant that if the area to the north is not irrigated the applicants would <br />need to seek a variance. IVIre Spalding questioned if there were any plans for the pathway between <br />the applicant's site and Panera Bread. Mr. Greenberger suggested that he was informed that the <br />pathway would be eliminated. Mre 1Vlacintosh clarified that the pathway or steps being referred to <br />is not owned by the mall they belong to Panera Bread and does not foresee the steps being removed. <br />Although we have not requested the pathway be removed the mall does not indorse the work at all. <br />li'Ir. Spalding questioned if the parking would still be within code for the mall. Mr. Greenbergei• <br />assured the board that Westfield was very firm about the parking spaces being a minimum of 299 <br />spaces. Mr. Rymarczyk requested a ruling as to whether the applicants would require a variance for <br />front yard setback for parking. <br />10