04/26/1994 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

t t lot to display landscape materials, even temporarily thus eliminating tens of dozens of spaces; there is confusion over the number of trucks that enter the property, up to 8 trucks were mentioned for a smaller store at the previous location, now there are McDonald's trucks, Pepsi trucks, U.P.S. R.P.S., and it has been stated that there would be 6 or 7 trucks per day, it should be clarified exactly what kind of traffic can be expected at this larger prototype. The pictures of another store showed a nice brick facade on three sides of the building, but the A.R.B. has apparently accepted the architect's proposal at tonight's meeting for brick in various areas. Mr. Gorris asked for other coneerns. Mr. Miller was concerned about the volume of material that they had to go over, and that something might be overlooked considering that they had not received the minutes from tonight's meeting. Mro Orlowski agreed and would like more time to review the prints. Regaxding the access on Brookpark Road, Mr. Thomas needed clarification on what had been decided on those access points. Mr. Gorris stated that he was totally opposed to more than ane access point on Brookpark and noted that Great Northern Mall has only 1 access on Brookpark, and he is concerned that Brookpark Road might become another Lorain Road. He asked Mr. Papandreas, Biskind Development Company, if they had officially applied to the O.D.O.T. for this parcel. Mr. Papandreas responded that the original application, made in the 1980's, was for two curb cuts across fron each other to both parcels, "E" and "A". That cut was 11260 some feet east from the center line of Great Northern Boulevard, the cut now is 1,146 feet from Great Northerna On March 22nd, they sent a letter to O.D.O.T. requesting that the pending application be re-activated, and they made reference to the site plan that Mr. Newberry had sent to O.D.O.T. asking for their review of the accesses not only to parcel "E" and "A", but also for review of the entire site plan and the third access that was shown an it. They have received no reply and expect Wal-Mart to pursue it. Mr. Gorris thought that O.D.O.T. believed that there was a request from the city to allow two entrances onto parcel "A" and one onto parcel "E" and was concerned since he understood that City Council had to approve these accesses. Mr. Deichmann clarified that O.D.O.T. would not act without written city approval. In reference to parcel "E" which was rezoned to office a few years ago, Mro Thomas stated that there were rumors that this parcel might be rezoned and noted that frequently a Sam's Club is built close to a Wal-Mart. He wondered if that were true. Mr. Papandreas was not aware of any proposal for that property. In response to questions, he further advised that the Wal-Mart lot is 15.5 acres and parcel "E" is 24 acres. Mr. Gorris questioned what the impact would be on parcel"E" if the drive were moved 110 feet west. Mr. Papandreas stated they have determined that there was a window (roughly 100 feet in either direction from the original cut) in which the curb cut could be located to reasonably take advantage of the development potential of parcel "E". There is no projected use, other than for office, at this time. Mr. Papandreas did see the alternate plan with the single drive moved further to the west, and they believe that this would create an adverse situation for maxirmnn development of parcel "E" since the drive would have to go into the shallower portion of the parcel as opposed to the deeper portion. The drive on Wal-Mart's first plan is right on the line of the shallower portion of the garcel. He advised Mr. Gorris that they had reviewed their originally applied-for curb cut and had determined that it would be better to move it further to the west so that the entry drive would be going into the 100 foot building setback area. He explained that there was a 50 foot landscape setback and a 100 foot building setback, and to maximize the potential of the site, the entry drive should come into the building setback. Mr. Deichmann advised Mr. Thomas that, if a developer requested access onto Brookpark Road, he would have to submit plans to Planning Commission and proceed to City Council as per the ordinance that was enacted last year. Mr. Thomas noted that if the 6