06/08/2004 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. consideration. The residents are not concerned that there will be no residential use on the site and they are glad the outer buildings will only be two-stories. It will be an upscale shopping center as suggested. A big-box store is not allowed in mixed-use D, but the residents stated that they would accept the Target store if it was broken up to look like little shops. He suggested that one of Council's conditions stated that due to the large massing of the Target building, the building will be broken up with varied heights, depths, and roof lines to give the look of various numbers of shops versus one box building look. The Target store has come a long way but it does not break up the massing enough. He suggested that placing awnings would help break up the massing. The residents are also concerned that the applicants will be allowed to place thirty seven 30-foot tall light poles on the site. The residents would like Planning Commission to request the heights of the poles be reduced. Mr. Koeth reviewed that at Planning Commissions last meeting the applicants were instructed to reduce the height of the light poles along the perimeter. Mr. O'Malley pointed out that the applicant's plans show 17-foot poles on a 3-foot base for a total height of 20-feet. Mr. Berryhill indicated that their proposed lighting is within code and the photometric plans are based on flat elevations, mounds and fencing was not a factor, so the readings will be zero at the lot line. Mr. Berryhill at the request of the commission reviewed that the round areas on the plans between Brookpark Road and buildings B, C, and D are brick walls with seating areas and planters. R. Koeth move to approve the detail plan of Carnegie Management & Development Corporation, Mixed-Use development Parcel E with the following conditions and modifications: 1). The approval remain subject to City Councils conditional amendment of the preliminary development plan. 2). The approval is subject to the Board of Zoning Appeals issuance of conditional variances as described in their motion. 3). That at least two means of access to the development are necessary and if O.D.O.T. denies the variance for the eastern driveway than an alternative access point be provided and the traffic impact be analyzed. 4). The light poles around the perimeter of the site will be a maximum of 20-feet in height including the base as shown on the plans. 5). The ornamental light fixtures as shown on the plans be permitted. 6). The landscape plan to be amended to identify hardwood trees which based on the tree survey will be preserved on the site and that absolutely no trees will be cut dawn without the appropriate permit being issued by the City Forester. 7). A consolidation plat be.submitted to and approved by the Engineering Department. 8). All Engineering recommendations for storage, length of entrance lanes and other traffic signalization into the site must be shown on the plans ancl remain subject to O.D.O.T's approval. 9). That all other Engineering recommendations regarding utilities, drainage, easements, paving, grading, storm water detention, erosion control, and traffic signalization are met. 10). Adopting the materials that were submitted and approved by the Architectural Review Board. 11). The site access and intersection approval remain subject to O.D.O.T's. review with respect to traffic signalization upgrade and other ROW improvements. 12). The west egress/entrance to Great Northern Blvd is to be eliminated from the plans. T. Hreha seconded the motion, roll call on the motion T. Hreha, S. Hoff-Smith, C. Allan, R. Koeth "Yes" and M. Yager "No". Motion approved. During roll call R. Koeth made the following comments; The development of this site has gone on for almost two years, with the cooperation of the City, the Planner, Planning Commission, and taking the judges comments 4