Laserfiche WebLink
that a11 the employees were directed to park away from the front of the building <br />and employee parking areas will be designated. Regarding the cardboard storage, <br />Mr. Conway advised that there are codes pertaining to that which are eriforced by <br />the Board of Health, and it woUld be up to Planning Comnission to have them show <br />a dumpster location or an enclosure. In reference to rotating the bui.lding, Mr. <br />Newberry again stated that this would severely limit the number of customer <br />parking spaces in front of the store. They cannot have a door an the side for <br />security reasons. This location had been studied and rejected. He clarified that <br />this store has 3 entrances instead of one at other locations, and customers go <br />through the cash registers a.nd exit in the middle. Mro Miller suggested tha.t <br />under Mr. Gerrity's plan, they could put one entrance near the northern eorner <br />which would be close to the cash registers and to the side parking. Mr. Newberry <br />did not want to split the exiting customers into two areas, because it would <br />disrupt the internal fixturi.ng of the store. He restated that Wal-Mart has a <br />highly sophisticated merchandising system, and they do not want to re-invent the <br />wheel i.f there is a way to put the building on the site without doing so. Mr. <br />Miller believed that, by asking f_or variances, they were re-inventing the wheel. <br />Mr. Newberry responded by repeating that this layout is the best plan for their <br />merchandising layout, they need the parking in front, and that the area Mr. <br />Miller was referring to for a side door was a merchandising area which could not <br />be changed. Mr. Gorris noted that the building was still at the variance line, <br />even if it was turned. Mrs. 0'Rourke suggested putting the back of the building <br />toward Brookpark and facing it toward Country Club. Mr. Newberry rejected this <br />because it would increase the number of drives, the building would have to be <br />setback 100 feet from Brookpark, etc. Mrs. Diver, a resident of Mitchell, asked <br />why, if.a 125,000 square foot building was proposed at Dover and Lorain, it would <br />not be all right for this parcel. She also wondered why Wal-Mart could not use <br />the Dover/Lorain area which is expressly a retail area with no residential <br />backing up to it. Since Wal-Mart ha.s a choice of two parcels and variances were <br />needed here, she cannot understand why neither the seller or the buyer are <br />willing to make compromises. She was advised that the Dover/Lorain site did back <br />up to residential property and that the variances had been granted and the <br />Commission had to live within the law. She congratulated the Commission for <br />trying to protect the residents. Mr. Skoulis, representing the Park West Home <br />Owners, asked for clarification of several issues. Regarding the wetlands, Mr. <br />Newberry advised that the agent from the Corp of Engineers had been on the site <br />and has reviewed the delineation that had been done, but no final opinion has <br />been rendered, but he,has been advised that a letter is forthcoming. Mr. Skoulis <br />asked Mr. Dubelko if Planning Commission could force Wal-Mart to change the <br />location of the store now that the variances have been granted. Mr. Dubelko <br />stated that the Planning Commission's function is to see that the Zoning Code is <br />complied with, and the variance gives them the right to build up to 60 feet of <br />the property lineo If Plann;ng Commission feels, based on evidence, that there is <br />a serious impact on safety, welfare, etc. and if the plan can practicably be <br />revised to ameliorate that impact, Planning Commission has the authority to <br />change the plan but any changes have to be based upon impacts that the Planning <br />Comnission finds based on the evidence brought before them. As far as the <br />lighting washing the building, Iqr. Newberry stated that the central sign was <br />internally lit, the lighting poles at the front of the building has one fixture <br />turned up 10 degrees to wash the front of the builcLing. He maintained it would <br />not be bright, but would be approximately 12 foot candles. The only lighting an <br />the back of the building would be wall mounted lights over the emergency exit <br />doors (3 on the north face and 2 on the east face) and would be totally screened <br />by the mound. Mr. Skoulis advised that they wanted to reduce the impact on their <br />neighborhood which is behind a vacant parcel on the north side of Brookpark, and <br />10