Laserfiche WebLink
next to the freeway. He now has an inkling that parcel "E" will not be fit for <br />office space. Mr. Gorris stated that it would appear that the best use of the <br />land is not for planning purposes it is for economic purposes. He disagreed.that <br />this proposal would not impact traffic on Columbia Road. He Was confused about <br />the ditch an the property. Mr. Newberry clarified that this ditch serves an the <br />property on which it lies and that this water would be taken care of by their <br />retention system. Mr. McKay stated that it appeared from what the City Engineer <br />stated that he was not sure what was planned for the ditch east of the property <br />would work and wondered if it did not work who would correct it. Mr. Deichmann <br />stated that he cannot make a confirmed statement at this time because they have <br />not prepared detailed engineering plans, but what they propose must conform to <br />the ordinances. Mr. McKay cited a case where a resident had water in his yard <br />from the construction of ane of the high -rise apartments, and he had to correct <br />the problem himself. Mr. Deichmarm stated that the ordinances have changed since <br />then. Mr. McKay hoped that they had. Mrs. Musser, a resident of the Westbury, was <br />concerned about the Great Northern access which will probably serve all the cars <br />coming from I-480, she is concerned that it will be impossible for Westbury <br />residents to get out of their drive. Mr. Orlowski would like a"Do Not Block <br />Drive" sign an the east side of the driveway entrance and 3 to 5 cars would block <br />the drive. He is against this access drive and is concerned tha.t during <br />construction of the roadway from Wal-Mart, the developers should provide <br />information to prove that they are not going to structurally undermine the <br />underground parking garage and he wants to make sure that the vibration and <br />movement of traffic is not going to create an adverse effect on the job. Mr. <br />Thomas agreed that the entrance would be used in favor of the so ca.lled "main <br />entrance":.since there will be two entrances before driver coming from I-480 will <br />get to the main entrance. Ms. Musser agreed with Mr. Orlowski that drivers would <br />use this as a cut through to avoid a light. Mr. Thomas believed that these <br />accesses must be addressed. Mr. Miller quoted the Traff-Pro study which showed 41 <br />percent of the traffic will come into main entrance, 38 percent will use the <br />access an Great Northern (near the Westbury). Mr. Thomas questioned how this was <br />figured. Mr. Newberry advised that the traffic using the Brookpark entrance would <br />come be on Brookpark Park, Columbia and Lorain Roads, not I-480. Thirty one per <br />of the traffic coming to this area comes westbound on Brookpark. Mr. Newberry <br />stated that Mr.. Griffith did review the traffic study, consulted with Traff-Pro, <br />and was in general support of what was found. Regarding the outdoor sale of <br />seasonal items, 4 seasons of the year, Mr. Miller asked if that sales area should <br />not be computed in their required parking spaces, and if not why not. Mr. Conway <br />responded that the code allows for the actual storage of nierchandise to be <br />subtracted from the overall figure of the building, these are plantings etc., <br />which is not an actual, physical increase in floor area. Mr. Miller stated that <br />this would be creating a sales area beyond that which is under roof. Again, if he <br />is talking about storing in parking spaces, Mr. Conway explained that this would <br />have to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals, but if they place a swing set, or <br />something similar in the front sidewalk he does not count that as sales area, but <br />he did take into consideration the fenced in area of the garden center. Mr. <br />rLiller asked where Mr. Conway drew the line, what if there were 4 swing setS Mr. <br />Conway stated that this display area was not drawing more people to the store, <br />and he would not consider it sales area. Mr. Miller clisagreed, asking what would <br />happen if this was the only place this was displayed.' Mr. Conway gave an example <br />of a gas station which puts aut mulch, and this is not considered as sales area. <br />Mr. Gorris explained that if this would infringe on the parking, then a variance <br />would be required. Mr. Conway stated that since the code specifically prohibits <br />display in the front 75 foot setback, so that would imply that it is allowed <br />elsewhere provided no other section of the code is violated. Mr. Miller believed <br />11