Laserfiche WebLink
Council Minutes of 2/1/20{15 <br />in public areas. It was agreed that at a future time professional speakers who are informed on <br />this topic will be invited to make presentations to Council. <br />2) This evening the committee met to discuss a liquor transfer for William F. Smith, DBA <br />Beverage Consultants, 30871 Lorain Road, Unit C, a C1, C2 license to Beverage Consultants <br />LLC at the same address. The committee recommended to not object as the Police Department <br />had no objection. Councilman Miller made a motion that Council not object to the Cl, C2 liquor <br />license transfer from William F. Smith DBA Beverage Consultants, 30871 Lorain Road, Unit C <br />to Beverage Consultants LLC, 30871 Lorain Road, Unit C. The motion was seconded by <br />Councilwoman Kas1er and passed unanimously. <br />Councilman Gareau, chairperson of the Building, Zoning and Development Committee: 1) The <br />committee met on Tuesday, January 25. Present were committee members, all members of <br />Council, the President of Council, the Mayor, the Planning Director and Law Director and the <br />Building Commissioner. Agenda items were as follows: <br />• Kennedy Ridge Townhouses, a Planning Commission referral for a modification to a <br />previous light proposal. Lighting standards originally approved on this project and <br />presented to Council were for 15 inches along the driveway. When the project was <br />constructed, there was a mistake made and the lights were installed at 15 feet. The lights <br />were subsequently dropped to 12 feet. However, City Council felt the original theme of a <br />lower lighting was most appropriate but did subsequently recommend approval of 24 inches. <br />This was brought back again as the 24 inch lightscaping proposal. They will be installed <br />with shields, and are more ornamental lighting. It is entirely consistent with our light code <br />and meets the objective of lighting the path of the driveway. The committee unanimously <br />recommended approval of the Kennedy Ridge Townhouses lighting modification. <br />Councilman Gareau moved that Council approve the modification to the lighting plan for the <br />Kennedy Ridge Townhouses. The motion was seconded by Councilman McKay and passed <br />unanimously. <br />• Carnegie Mgt. and Development came in to discuss a conceptual amendment to the <br />preliminary land use plan for Parcel E. This was not a formal presentation because the <br />amendment has not been submitted. Bob Berryhill presented the modified preliminary land <br />use plan and said, because of a utility cost concern of relocation, Carnegie Mgt. is suggesting <br />that two of the buildings be modified. The two buildings are on the western end of property. <br />One of buildings would be reduced from 31,000 sq. feet to 22,000 sq. feet. The other <br />increased from 31,000 sq. feet to 40,000 sq. feet. Buildings B and D would now be an all <br />office use. A dock area was added with additional screening. There was a courtyard <br />between two of the buildings which would be removed and replaced with parking because <br />apparently some of the business tenants object to having to share space with retail parking. <br />There was an attempt to try to separate the two parking areas by moving the buildings back <br />60 feet closer to the residences on the north and adding a parking to the front of the building. <br />Whereas once along Brookpark Road with the buildings on the west, you would see grass <br />and the buildings with parking in the rear. The proposed change would slide the building <br />back and put a strip of parking in front of the building and retain some of the parking in the <br />rear. The total move back would have been 60 feet. Objections were immediately raised by <br />members of Council. First, was the relocation of the building and suggestion that it should <br />not be moved back closer to the residential properties. It was discussed that, when the <br />project was originally approved, the residential homeowners to the rear on the north knew <br />that the property would have parking in the back and that was okay. They would rather have <br />the parking instead of the building. The other issue discussed was the loss of green space on <br />6 <br />