09/14/2022 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Olivos commented that the proposed drive-through is confusing and with a little imagination the pick-up window could work. He suggested that the handicap parking spaces should be moved closer to the building. Right now the way the plan is being presented is against the traffic logic and he does not feel comfortable. A lengthy discussion was held regarding the traffic flow. Mr. O'Malley recommended that the board table the application. Ms. Nader asked the applicant if they would be willing to table the proposal, Mr. Abukhalil stated yes. Motion by Ms. Nader, second by Mr. Anderson to table 22-21179; Low Cost Pharmacy; 26901 Brookpark Rd. Extension and encourage the applicant to come back with a revised plan that would address the safety and traffic flow concerns. Motion Passed 4-0. 22-22253; Field Stone Developers; 31351 Industrial Parkway Proposal consists of new construction for a multi -tenant building. Property is zoned Limited Industry -Industrial Park. Director Upton explained that the applicant submitted one application for both of the proposed two new buildings on Industrial Parkway and he feels the concept and design of the buildings meets the criteria for the permit to be granted. City Engineer Pete DiFranco provided his engineering report. He explained that they are a few outstanding items that need to be addressed. For example, the applicants reported more parking than what the code allows. They are allowed 20% over the required 52 spots and they are showing 114. He did note that the planning commission can approve the parking with those spots being constructed with permeable pavers. Second, the photometric report has not been provided. Third, the landscaping plan shows undesirable trees, non -grouping of shrubs and sizes of trees that are not compliant with the code. Fourth, the plan is being presented as two separate lots with a property line down the middle which requires two separate sediment basins and one is shown. Mr. DiFranco stated that the code requires the site to provide cross -access easements as well as an irrigation system. Lastly, Mr. DiFranco recommended that approval is contingent upon addressing the comments from the engineer's department. Mr. Cerny described the proposed project and explained that there are currently two lots at this location in which the buildings will be completed in two phases. The first phase includes the construction of the smaller building which is approximately 40,000 square feet and all the site grading and layout. Phase two would include the construction of the second building. Mr. Cerny addressed Mr. DiFranco comments. He explained that a photometric report was submitted however, there were concerns from the building commissioner regarding too much light on the parking lot and they are working on a solution. In regards to the parking spaces he stated that they would land bank a portion of the parking lot. Since they do not have any tenants it is difficult to base the parking requirements. They do not know at this time what percent would be office and or industrial. Mr. Cerny stated that they will comply with the code in terms of the landscaping requirements. He explained that it is not their intent to put the cross -access easement in yet since they will not be constructing the second building until phase one is complete. He