P. Owen: The same.

G. Luenzmann: After the public.

G. Monaco: After the public.

T. Hamilton: After the public.

G. Lake: Are there any comments from the public?

MOTION to close this PUBLIC HEARING at 8:05 P.M. made by A. Dulgarian and seconded by G. Monaco.

A. Dulgarian: Aye

P. Owen: Aye

T. Hamilton: Aye

G. Monaco: Aye

G. Luenzmann: Aye

G. Lake: Aye

MOTION CARRIED. 6 AYES

G. Lake: Dick, your comments?

D. McGoey: Let me go through a couple of them. The dumpster enclosure, I told them before it is common practice that this Board see the details and to be provided on the Site Plan. We want to make sure that the chain link fence is limited from view in the front of the building or on North Galleria Drive so we want to see those details.

J. Braverman: Okay. We would stipulate that it would match the building siding.

D. McGoey: The last set of comments ask that the detail be shown on the Site Plan.

J. Braverman: Can we ask for an approval subject to?

D. McGoey: That’s something the Board has to do.

G. Lake: Again, you will supply that information?

J. Braverman: We will supply a detail and the detail would show that it would match the siding.

D. McGoey: The other issue is the architectural rendering of the new restaurant. We haven’t seen that.

J. Braverman: We have pictures of that.

G. Lake: Let me go through the Board.

A. Dulgarian: Come back to me please.

P. Owen: I don’t have anything.

G. Luenzmann: The only thing that I would be concerned about is the ingress and egress of people getting in and out with that parking lot in lieu of all the traffic that’s on North Galleria Drive.

D. McGoey: There is a signal there.

G. Luenzmann: That would be my concern, the traffic situation.

G. Monaco: Looking at the pictures, is there a place for the patrons to wait?

J. Braverman: It’s a fairly large internal waiting area. There is about five hundred square feet and if you take ten feet per person, there’s room for about forty six people.

G. Monaco: And a sitting there also?

R. Duff: I submitted a footprint to Mr. McGoey and I have extra copies available. There’s a vestibule area and also a waiting area.

G. Lake: I think we did talk about this in the work session, right?

R. Duff: Yes.

G. Lake: And I think the Board is concerned because of patrons standing out in the parking area. I think that’s what the Board wants to solve now.

D. McGoey: He had the layout for the other restaurant.

G. Lake: But not this one.

T. Hamilton: We should have this stuff ahead of time so we can look at it previous to the meeting.

G. Lake: I have to agree with Mr. Hamilton and it has been told at work sessions to tell people to have everything so the whole Board can look at it.

G. Monaco: How many seats are provided in the waiting area?

R. Duff: What they’ve designated as the waiting area which is just inside the vestibule area. This isn’t detailed enough to indicate the actual seating capacity.

J. Braverman: There is both a vestibule waiting area as well as a very expensive waiting area.

T. Hamilton: There’s no seats though. It doesn’t show any seats.

J. Braverman: It doesn’t show any seats in the waiting and vestibule area, it’s all inside.

T. Hamilton: I’m not going to stand inside up to forty five minutes and wait for a table, I’m either going to go outside, in my car, or what ever and we’re trying to stop this.

G. Lake: Obviously it’s a problem and I really thought at the work session we got that across to you. I apologize if I didn’t. We’re trying to keep it from having patrons stand in the parking lot.

J. Braverman: This is actually a little bit larger than the waiting area we showed the last time and it seemed to be satisfactory to the Board.

T. Hamilton: I thought there was a waiting area on the outside the last time.

J. Braverman: No, it was inside. This design of the building also have an overhang so some can stand outside. Your idea originally was to keep everybody inside and to make sure that there was an ample area just for waiting.

G. Lake: We don’t want this to come back and haunt us.

J. Braverman: That’s why this one was designed with a very large waiting area.

G. Monaco: I just would like to see some detail on this.

R. Duff: There are twenty four seats at the bar also which is considered a waiting area also.

T. Hamilton: Dick, can we figure the approximate calculations for restaurants, is it based on the seating?

D. McGoey: By the square footage.

T. Hamilton: That takes into consideration how many people have seats to be served?

D. McGoey: The square footage of patron area. This is a shopping center. You have to keep that in mind also. Shopping centers are calculated on the basis of five and 5.5 parking spaces per one thousand square feet and then you add on top of that if they have a restaurant an additional.

T. Hamilton: You have every serving seat in the restaurant full, and you’re going to have another fifty people that are waiting to be seated, does that cover? I see the parking lots in all of these restaurants and they’re not big enough. You have to figure in the waiting.

D. McGoey: What you would have to is re-evaluate our ordinance.

J. Braverman: There’s about five hundred and seventeen parking spaces in this center. It is more than enough. You all live in the Town and know that this is an area of the shopping center that’s mostly vacant most of time. Most of the stores in the shopping center are furniture stores. If they have three or four or six customers buying furniture, they’re thrilled. This is not an overloaded parking lot at all.

T. Hamilton: Did they redo the calculations?

D. McGoey: I haven’t reviewed it yet.

T. Hamilton: Landscaping. Have you seen the landscaping?

D. McGoey: I haven’t seen it yet.

T. Hamilton: I would like to see it also.

R. Duff: What was requested from Mr. McGoey is for some additional landscaping in this area on the south end.

T. Hamilton: To me it doesn’t look like too much landscaping.

J. Braverman: In this area there is water and it is natural. It’s quite a beautiful area. I don’t think there is any reason to hide it.

T. Hamilton: No, but the whole thing is, we haven’t seen this. I haven’t had a chance to look at it, same with the parking, same with the seating.

R. Duff: I submitted a whole set of drawings to everybody, a revised set of drawings.

D. McGoey: Yes, but not since my comments.

R. Duff: Not since your comments which requested the lower area. There’s a lot of landscaping along North Galleria Drive that exists today as far as trees and shrubs in that particular area.

T. Hamilton: Is that your property or is that Town road property?

R. Duff: The trees are right on the property line and maybe just a hare inside of the property line on Topper.

J. Braverman: There’s landscaping already in place all along the property.

G. Lake: Let me ask you something. The landscaping, is that what we’re going to see over there when you’re done?

J. Braverman: Yes.

G. Lake: Mr. Dulgarian, you asked me to get back to you?

A. Dulgarian: Yes. I think we touched up on a lot of the things regarding restaurants, parking, a waiting area for the patrons. The landscaping is very important and th aesthetics overall with the dumpster enclosure is very important in a restaurant. It’s hard to approve something where we have a picture of a restaurant in Ohio without actually seeing the way this footprint is going to look with the proper landscaping. My question with the parking and the restaurants, there is too many restaurants in the Town that do have a problem. My question is regarding the parking calculations. That includes this building that’s existing there?

R. Duff: Yes.

A. Dulgarian: So, between the three projects, now what do you do split the building in half as far as parking requirements, half in the front and half in the back?

J. Braverman: Yes, approximately.

A. Dulgarian: So, how many spots are required by each?

R. Duff: The way that this parcel was set out originally when it was developed when it was Crystal Run, this was collectively looked at as the same as the shopping center.

A. Dulgarian: Well, it’s not. What parking calculations did you use?

R. Duff: What I did is based on square footage.

A. Dulgarian: Which did you use?

R. Duff: It’s broken up into retail and eatery.

A. Dulgarian: The retail?

R. Duff: The retail is the actual leasable space.

A. Dulgarian: I understand but isn’t there different parking requirements based on how many thousand square feet you have?

R. Duff: That’s right and what it is it is based on 4.2 per thousand square feet of a retail space.

A. Dulgarian: Why just 4.2?

R. Duff: That’s based on density of higher square footage.

A. Dulgarian: What about, if you went by sixteen thousand square feet, what would be the requirements?

R. Duff: That was done collectively.

A. Dulgarian: Well, you see it’s not collectively. The restaurant has to be on a stand alone parking lot.

G. Lake: Let me check with Mr. McGoey. The back parking lot, isn’t that for the bottom of building #2 and the two retails in the back and then the front parking lot, wasn’t that for the upper half of that building?

D. McGoey: Parking was calculated for the entire site at 4.2 spaces.

G. Lake: This entire site?

D. McGoey: Yes. The entire site. The rear parking lot was shared by the lower level retail of building #2 and a single retail in the parking lot. Now we’ve got a retail and a restaurant so they’ve recalculated their parking on that basis.

J. Braverman: And I believe the majority of spaces are in the rear.

A. Dulgarian: Getting back to my question is how many spaces are required for half of building #2, how many spaces are required for building #4 and how many for building #5?

R. Duff: Based on the classification for the site, we can look at it as a total picture. They haven’t been calculated for individual and the total picture is based on the retail square footage based on 4.2 spaces required per thousand square feet. There has not been any designated line for the upper section of the middle building and the lower section of the building. As far as designated parking spaces individual tenant, that has not been identified. The parcel on how this whole project got approved back in 1990 was that it was going to be considered a shopping center retail with eatery because of the Olive Garden and the eatery portion of it has a different calculation.

A. Dulgarian: Correct. I understand that but there was no eatery in the back at the time, correct.

R. Duff: No, there was twenty two thousand square feet of retail.

A. Dulgarian: I’m trying to figure out where we always run into problems with parking and I believe it’s because we’re using the entire site as the requirement instead of the parking to support that building itself. It looks like there is adequate parking but I would love to see the numbers. I would like to see how many are required for the restaurant, and the rest.

D. McGoey: Are you asking for the shopping center criteria or the stand alone restaurant criteria?

A. Dulgarian: Stand alone restaurant. People aren’t going to cross the road and we shouldn’t make them to get enough parking. That should stand alone.

J. Braverman: No. They don’t have to cross the road. The only parking is on this shopping center itself.

G. Lake: Basically at this point you’re looking to make both of these buildings stand on themselves.

A. Dulgarian: I’m looking. . .

G. Lake: Wait a minute. On one side of the coin we’re I think we’re going to run into a problem is that this lot that goes up by the Olive Garden and Pier I and this building #2 when all this was calculated it was one thing. You are now saying you would like us to do how many parking just for that one lease, how many parking spots does building #4 needs.

A. Dulgarian: And half of building #2.

G. Lake: The problem I think when we did this approval it was all retail and restaurant but some of this parking is peak hours or without peak hours like the furniture store and retail. I don’t know if we can at this point, and I’m not trying to defend the applicant, but I don’t know if we can separate that out actually with a lot because I don’t know if any . . .

T. Hamilton: That’s not the way our ordinance reads.

G. Lake: And that’s right. I think I know where Mr. Dulgarian is coming from because we do have a problem with some of the restaurants. There’s no doubt about it.

T. Hamilton: He is probably looking for the figures separated and compare it to what the shopping center has.

A. Dulgarian: Where will they park? If the guy has to park up by Pier I to make the parking will be supply the sidewalk? Fair is fair.

R. Duff: The sidewalk is existing.

G. Lake: I’m just trying to get this straight as how these things were set up.

A. Dulgarian: And I appreciate that. But my problem is this entire property uses the Galleria as the watermark for parking.

T. Hamilton: No it doesn’t.

A. Dulgarian: Yes, it’s using square feet.

T. Hamilton: No, it’s not. It’s using just this area.

D. McGoey: Just this area.

A. Dulgarian: But he is using 4.2 wasn’t that for . . .

D. McGoey: No, 4.2 is if you’re more than 100,000 square feet and less than 400,000 square feet.

A. Dulgarian: But does this meet that, the 4.2?

J. Braverman: Yes.

Page 3