Laserfiche WebLink
r <br />Mr. Lasko voiced his frustrations over the continued changes to plans and claims by the <br />applicant that prior plans would not work. The applicant profess to be an expert and knows <br />what they are doing and assured the City the plan was to have a lifestyle center. It has only <br />been nine days since the last meeting with the applicant and it is hard to believe that in those <br />nine days everything has been thrown out the window. He felt the applicant is spinning a trail <br />of yarn and the plan is becoming nothing more than an abomination to the City. In accordance <br />to City code for a proposal to be a Mixed-Use D it must be less than 50% retail use which is <br />clearly not what is seen on the current plans. The new plans show 78% retail and 22% other, <br />which does not meet the requirements for Mixed-Use D. The applicant felt that their <br />development was a mixed-use as it is more than one use. They could add more office units <br />and put back the parking garage in the back of the site but their research shows that most of <br />the office spaces would remain vacant. The commission felt that the residential portion was <br />what attracted them to the development and although it has architectural character, it is now <br />nothing more than a strip center which the City does not need. The Commissioner's were also <br />confused by the reaction of the residents in the audience as when the plan was first reviewed <br />they demanded residential use and now they prefer this plan. The City's goal has been to <br />bring more residential areas to North Olmsted, and the first plan offered the city an <br />opportunity for residential use. Ms. Wenger advised the board that while the applicant shows <br />mixed-use the percentage mix, does not meet the standards of the code. She advised the <br />commission to address the mix percentages and make recommendations on the variances that <br />will be required. The commission would rather see less pavement then have parking spaces <br />for no reason. The applicant needs to submit detailed engineering plans showing all easements <br />i.e. sanitary, electrical, and storm water. The rear setback behind buildings C& D need to be <br />50-feet. The applicants stated that the 50-foot depth on the loading dock would be met by <br />recessing them into the building and using overhead doors. The board had no objections to the <br />main entrance being 50-feet wide. The applicant submitted a new photometric plan to the <br />Building Commissioner. The commission asked that the applicant not light the buffered area, <br />and to shield the lights at the parking lot edge. The applicant felt that the mounds would <br />eliminate any light spillage as the photometric plan is based on a flat elevation. The board felt <br />that based on the current development being viewed as a new development being placed on <br />land zoned mixed-use D then the board is against the massing. The first plan was truly a <br />mixed-use, which is why the board had no objections. The current plans do not reflect the <br />land being used as mixed-use. Ms. Wenger suggested that as the City has no information <br />regarding the third egress perhaps the proposal should be tabled until such time the applicant <br />could provide the city with proper information. Mr. Berryhill stated that the third egress <br />would be removed from the plans. <br />Mr. Skoulis the came forward to voice the residents concerns. He suggested that a lot of <br />issues were discussed with the applicant prior to the meeting and he was not sure why the <br />applicant decided not to address what they agreed to. Mr. Koeth advised that any issues that <br />are discussed between the residents and the applicant should be properly presented to the <br />commission. Mr. Skoulis, residents concerns ;(1). Concerned about drainage at the bottom of <br />the mounds. Residents would like 6 to 8 inch pipes used for drainage system. (2). 30-foot <br />light poles are a concern as even with mounds there will be glare. (3). Problem with Target <br />building is that it still does not look like multiple stores. The southern and western face of <br />Target needs to be broken up more maybe with awnings. (4).The residents would like to see <br />the area that will have outside dining. (5).What trees will be removed and what trees will be <br />added around the mounds. Mr. Koeth voiced that forester indicated trees that should be saved <br />and he would like the plan to go back to the Architectural Review Board for comments <br />regarding the landscaping plan. Residents presented pictures of rear yards which showed <br />3