Page 1 of 6 WESTLAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING JUNE 4, 2018 Present: Chairman Brad Lamb, Lynda Appel, Phil DiCarlo, Lauren Falcone Also Present: Planning Director Jim Bedell, Assistant Planning Director Will Krause, Law Director Michael Maloney, Clerk of Commissions Nicolette Sackman Discussion of agenda items and fact finding was conducted at 7:00 p.m. The regular meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Brad Lamb. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mrs. Falcone moved, seconded by Mr. DiCarlo to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of May 14, 2018. COUNCIL REPORT Mrs. Appel had no report. OLD BUSINESS Ordinance 2018-12 Conditional Use Permit for a Drive-Thru Restaurant, (Arby s), 25288 Detroit Rd., PP#213-09-014 to 016, 021, 022 & 037, ref. by council 2/1/18, rep. R. Wellert, Ward 1, tabled 4/2/18, 5/14/18 Mr. Robert Wellert explained they completed a traffic study and as a result they revised the driveway to be a single drive, pushed to the east, rather than two drives and will have a permanent highway easement along Detroit Road. He reviewed the conceptual plans, circulation, and the turning radius through the site for fire trucks and delivery vehicles. They do not want to push the parking lot too far east as they want to keep it away from the drainage ditch that exists on that side of the property. The property is being leased by the applicant so the property owner will need to grant the highway easement that is necessary. Mr. Bedell reviewed his staff review memo. He noted this was previously PNC Bank which is a permitted main use on this property, but a drive through restaurant requires a conditional use permit (CUP). He reviewed other business uses that can go on the property without a CUP. Because the property is zoned Interchange Service a drive-in restaurant requires a CUP, otherwise, the restaurant and parking are permitted main and accessory uses. The property is a legal non-conforming lot with a width that is less than 250 (+/-140 ), which will require a
modification and cannot be redeveloped without a zoning modification granted by Council. He researched when the original building was constructed and the history of the parcel but it was constructed at time when there was not a planning department and there are little records. He compared the existing building and parking to the 1969 zoning code and the current zoning code and they do not comply with the requirements of either code. Mr. Bedell explained that this use will generate more traffic than a bank use with longer hours and seven days a week. The plans that were presented are only conceptual and if a CUP were to be granted the applicant will need to return to planning commission with a full development plan. He thought that the reason for 250 wide lot for a drive-through restaurant was to accommodate driveways for entering and exiting the lot and for room for sufficient stacking of vehicles. There are several other similar parcels in the area with fast food restaurants in the Interchange Service district where these types of uses are on lots that do not comply with the width requirements. The traffic study was reviewed by City Engineer Bob Kelly and Mr. Bedell reviewed his comments. Discussion ensued that the commission would like to see a follow up traffic study when a development plan is submitted. Findings of Fact: 1. The standards for evaluating conditional permits in Section 1227.03(b) have been met except for (6) regarding the concentration of vehicles in connection with proposed use shall not be more hazardous or dangerous than the normal traffic of the district. The traffic study did indicate a notable increase during lunch and dinner hours. This is an issue at this location for the following reasons: a. The lot is less than 250 in width at the front setback, as required by code, and this width was established in order to provide a safe distance between restaurants for traffic management. b. This use generates more traffic than the former bank or other potential financial or office uses and will also be open for longer hours and on nights and weekends. 2. Section 1227.03 (c) Safeguards and Conditions, allows the city to approve safeguards and conditions in the permit in addition to the general standards set forth in subsection (a) and (b) herein and these have been provided in the conditions of approval. 3. There are a number of setback modifications shown on the conceptual plan that will need to be addressed during the development plan process, should this conditional use permit be approved. Motion: Based on the findings of fact, Mrs. Falcone moved, seconded by Mr. DiCarlo to recommend approval of Ordinance 2018-12 with the following modification and conditions: 1. A modification from Section 1216.05 is granted to permit a minimum lot width of 140 at the front setback line. 2. A condition that an assembly plat be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval along with the development plan. 3. The two driveways will be eliminated with a new single driveway constructed as far to the east as possible 4. A 12 wide permanent highway easement right-of-way along Detroit Road will be dedicated to the City. 5. The vehicular connection between BP and this site will remain with the new development. Page 2 of 6
6. Condition that a follow up traffic study be completed with the final layout for the development plan. NEW BUSINESS Barroco Arepa Bar Storefront & Sign Plan, 287 Crocker Park Blvd., PP#211-25-004, rep. R. Levitz, Ward 5 Mr. Richard Levitz explained this tenant is going into the building previously occupied by 87 West in the Crocker Park Blvd. median. They propose to change the building color to one of the dark grey accent colors in the design criteria, which is neutral in color. Many of the building colors listed in the criteria are too blue and they would like a neutral dark grey color. The signage is similar to what previously existed in relation to size and location, but the applicant would like a larger sign on the east facing wall. Mr. Levitz reviewed the sign locations and noted the addition of a menu display case and a neon sign, both on the south elevation. Mr. Krause reviewed his staff review memo and noted a waiver is required for the proposed dark grey accent color to be a building color. He expressed concerns with the proposed grey on the building and in places where black or dark storefronts have been used, they were not for an entire building with all four sides being the dark color. Discussion ensued that the applicant preferred the dark grey color and they did not want to use a light grey-blue color that are shown in the design guidelines. Three members of the commission did not have any concerns with the grey color as proposed but it was suggested that the color be administratively reviewed and approved by the Planning Department staff. It was noted that the applicant would like to put art work, such as metal masks, on the west elevation where there is a lot of grey to break up the façade and Mr. Krause stated that the original intention for this wall would be to include artwork. The other facades have lots of windows so the grey is not the majority of the elevation. There may also be planters or a water feature in this area but that is something that Crocker Park would handle, not this tenant as it is not part of his tenant space. Findings of Fact Storefront: 1. The only change to the exterior storefront is to paint the existing brown storefront grey. 2. The proposed color grey matches Antique Velvet/Pantone 18-0403, an accent color from the Crocker Park Design Guidelines Color Palette. 3. The approved Color Palette divides colors between body colors and accent colors. 4. Body colors tend to be lighter in color than accent colors. 5. There are 28 grey body colors, all of which are lighter than the proposed grey. 6. The darkest grey body colors are Shale/Pantone 17-4911 and Payne s Blue Grey 17-5111. 7. The use of an accent color as a body color will require a waiver from the design criteria. Motion: Based on the findings of fact, Mrs. Falcone moved, seconded by Mr. DiCarlo to recommend approval of the storefront as submitted with condition that the choice of the gray building color be administratively reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. Page 3 of 6
Findings of Fact Sign Plan: 1. Based on its total linear frontage this pavilion is permitted up to 194.54 sq. ft. of sign area under Section 11.3 of the Crocker Park Mixed-Use Area Master Sign Criteria and Master Sign Plan and 141.56 sq. ft. of sign area is proposed. 2. Section 11.3 of the criteria was written with the 200 sq. ft. Neri kiosks in mind, whose small size is the rationale for limiting maximum individual sign size to 24 sq. ft. 3. This 2,370 sq. ft. pavilion is larger than some of the in-line tenants (such as Sun Glass Hut at 1,000 sq. ft. and L Occitane at 750 sq. ft.) which do not have this 24 sq. ft. restriction. 4. The Barroco sign plan includes one east facing wall sign of 41.28 sq. ft. which otherwise complies with the criteria. 5. Section 11.3 permits three types of secondary signs for pavilion tenants. 6. The Barroco sign plan includes four types of secondary sign types. 7. Section 11.3 limits window signs to not exceed 10% of the individual window glazing area. 8. The proposed neon window sign on the south elevation occupies 36% of the individual window glazing area that it is hung in. 9. The proposed menu display case on the south elevation occupies 51% of the individual window glazing area that it is hung in. Motion: Based on the findings of fact, Mrs. Falcone moved, seconded by Mr. DiCarlo to approve the Barroco sign plan as submitted with the following waivers from the Crocker Park Mixed-Use Area Master Sign Criteria and Master Sign Plan: 1. Waiver of 17.28 sq. ft. to permit one 41.28 sq. ft. east facing wall sign. 2. Waiver to permit one extra secondary sign type. 3. Waiver to permit south facing neon window sign to occupy 36% of the individual glazing area of the window that it is hung in. 4. Waiver to permit south facing menu display case to occupy 51% of the individual window glazing area that it is hung in. Canterbury Commons Development Plan, NW corner Canterbury and Detroit, PP#213-05-005 to 008, 022 & 024, rep. P. Sirpilla, Ward 3 Mr. Patrick Sirpilla, DeVille Developers, reviewed the proposal for a multi-building shopping center. Based on staff review comments they have revised the master sign criteria to address concerns and will be making revisions to the development plans to address comments received. They have also conducted a traffic study and will be revising the placement of the driveway on Detroit Road based on study recommendations as well as moving and enlarging the entrance taper. The site has a sidewalk in the center of the Detroit Road frontage that connects pedestrians Page 4 of 6
to the rear building on the site, which will be location of Marc s. It was suggested by the City Engineer to move this walk to the west so it is near the driveway. They are willing to do what the city would like but felt the proposed location in the middle of the site provided better safety as it is not located next to the driveway and was a more direct route to the tenant buildings. Mr. Bedell suggested way-finding signs to direct pedestrians to the walkway as it is possible people along Detroit Road would cut across the driveway if they did not know about the sidewalk. Mr. Bedell reviewed his staff memo. Currently the area to be developed is mostly paved and free of trees. The Marc s building is proposed to be 45,000 sf and the code limits a retail space to 40,000 sf. The two front buildings will be 3,900 sf each and their design will mirror one another with tower features. He noted that if all the parking shown is not needed some of it can be land banked, which had not been previously discussed with the applicant. The proposed lighting was reviewed by the city s lighting consultant (Mr. Tilton) and Mr. Bedell reviewed recommendations made by the consultant. Suggestions made by Mr. Tilton were: 1. To treat this area more like an Interchange Service area due to the proximity of the I-90 corridor and bridge and surrounding commercial and lack of residential. Therefore, LZ-3 standards may be utilized instead of the LZ-2 standards for General Business. This will require a modification. This allows the 25 pole height for the taller poles indicated for the north part of the shopping center. The 20 tall ones closer to Detroit Road are permitted in either lighting zone. 2. The parking lot averages should be reduced to 2.0 fc. This is still.5 fc higher than allowed in LZ-3, but for this location it is appropriate to allow this increase. This will require a modification. 3. Transition zone lighting at driveways at 1.0 fc average shall be furnished in accordance with 1230.03(h)(2)(D). 4. Pole spacing and luminaire optics shall be revised to address glare. Mr. Bedell suggested limiting the Marc s retail floor area to 40,000 sf with the remaining 5,000 s.f. for storage and support space. He noted they did reduce the building footprint based on the 50,000 sf Marc s has elsewhere. The amount of landscape proposed exceeds what is required but it was noted some of the property shown on the plan is owned by ODOT (.331 acres) and the developer needs to obtain an easement for the land so it can be used as part of the lot. He reviewed the floor plans for the buildings and the architectural design, which has a nice level of detail. The materials proposed meet the design guidelines. Overall the site plan is acceptable but there are details yet to be determined and revisions that need to be submitted. Mr. DiCarlo suggested changes to the landscape plan and plants to be replaced and moved to other locations. Mr. Krause reviewed his memo regarding the master sign criteria. He noted this property has over 900 of frontage so they are able to have a primary monument sign 40 sf in area and a secondary monument sign 30 sf in area, with the maximum number of signs not to exceed one per each driveway entrance. He reviewed the proposed criteria noting further revisions are necessary to address: if major tenant can have a different type of wall sign than individual letters; need to discuss other types of secondary signage permitted for the tenants such as blade signs, awnings, permanent window signs, etc. if they are anticipated; the height of the M on the Marc s sign; the total amount of signage there could be on the entire site; and that there should be a simple drawing showing what signs are permitted so in the future if there is an issue it is easy to determine what is permitted by the criteria. He noted there is a drop in grade from the street to the rear building so a modification for a large letter M may be reasonable. As Page 5 of 6
proposed there is more signage than the code permits so the criteria needs further work and revisions. The following property owners made comments to the commission: Mr. Duane VanDyke, 1390 Queen Anne s Gate; and Ms. Lois Nonneman, owner of the Fencorp building on Detroit Rd. Comments and concerns expressed were: concerns that the lighting level will be considered the same as Interchange Service and become too bright; the lighting should be similar in illumination to the shopping centers southeast of this location and not stand out but should be subtle; if you allow brighter lights here, others will want the same consideration; how much increased traffic will there be as it is difficult to make a left hand turn now off Detroit Road into Fencorp due to volume and speed. Mr. Walsh, GBC Design, explained a traffic study was done which is why they are adding a turn lane (tapered lane) into the driveway and will be placing the entrance driveway per the traffic study recommendations. Mr. Sirpilla added the traffic study is why the proposal went from two drives to one drive as they did look at the impact. He feels this proposal will be an amenity to the area as people will be able to eat and shop before work, during their lunch, or after work. Per the traffic study the proposal will not create a negative impact on the intersection. Members of the commission thanked Mr. Sirpilla and his team for their work on the proposal but felt this item should be tabled so the plans can be revised based on discussion and Mr. Bedell can further review the lighting with Mr. Tilton. They also agree that they would like to see the retail floor space for Marc s limited to 40,000 sf, which would not include support area such as docks, office space, employee restrooms, and etc. Contrary to the recommendations of the City Engineer and City s lighting consultant, the commission favored the pedestrian walkway to be in the center of the site as shown and for the lighting to continue to be designed to LZ-2 standards per the zoning code. It was noted that the interior light fixtures should not be visible from outside the building like the Drug Mart building down the street. Motion: Mrs. Falcone moved, seconded by Mr. DiCarlo to table the Canterbury Commons development plan, assembly plan and master sign criteria to the July 2, 2018 meeting with a condition that revised plans are submitted by June 20, 2018. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:08 p.m. The next regular meeting is scheduled for Monday, July 2, 2018, in the Westlake City Hall Council Chambers. Brad Lamb Chairman Brad Lamb Nicolette Sackman Nicolette Sackman, MMC Clerk of Commissions Approved: July 2, 2018 Page 6 of 6