10/25/1994 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. ? ?. facility from the west to the north corner of the building facing east and shielded by a screen wall wluch eliminates all loading along most of the back of the shopping center and focuses it to the south and east where it should be the least objectionable. Further on the site plan they have added a deceleration lane on Lorain Road, a side walk to Mill Road, and have eluninated the access to McDonald's, the mounding on the west side of the bualding has been increased and will have a 6 foot board on board fence on top aud they will present details to make sure it is of suff'icient strength. He clarified that they had not been able to work out an agreement with McDonald's so they deleted it, and they do not intend to allow McDonald's employees to park on their property. They also intend to identify truck loading times and the specified truck route with signage, Mr. Papandreas noted that the other entries would not physically accommodate truck traffic. Mr. Thomas questioned the infrastructure cost to the city. City Engineer Deichmann had sent a memo earlier advising that there would be a 1.2 million dollar infrastructure improvement cost. Mr. Thomas had not been at the last meeting and had not seen the memo. Mr. Deichmann fiiither advised that the city had applied to the Ohio Public Works Commission for a grant to assist with the cost of that project. Mr. Papandreas advised that in lus discussion with the residents before the meeting, he had agreed to relocate the existing fence to the back of the property line so that they would have tlie benefit of that fence as well. The city forester had submitted a plan with suggestions for saving trees and Mr. Papandreas advised that they had no problem with any of the locations that he identified. However, a few of the trees that he wanted to save along Mill Road, could have interfered with some of the parking, but he presented an optional plau wluch slightly relocated the Mill Road access drive about 20 or 30 feet to the west but results in a better distribution between the existing curb cuts and improves on-site circulation. The Engineering Department believed this to be an improvement because it would increase the stacking length on Mill Road. He has not shown this plan to the forester, but he is sure that they can accommodate those trees and he also assured W. Miller that there was nothing directly across the street from curb cut which was about an equal distauce between the cuts on the opposite side of Mill Road. Mr. Thomas was coucerned that tlus might encourage traffic on Porter Road. Mr. Gorris asked Assistaut City Engineer Griffith to explain his analysis of their traffic report of April, 1994, and it was clarified that 956 trip ends should have read 856 trip ends. Mr. Gorris then questioned the 825 trip ends that Wal- Mart was calculated to generate, and he wondered what the source for this figure was, because he came up with well over a thousand trip ends. Mr. Griffith stated that this came from their traffic report. Mr. Gorris read the figures from page 11 of the Traff I'ro study for Wal-Mart. Mr. Griffith clarified that he only included the new traffic, not pass by traffic entering the site, but the total going in and out of the site would be the 1,099 trips. Mr. Gorris then stated that 146,000 square foot development by Wal-Mart would generate 1,099 velucle trip ends wluch is about 7.5 trip ends per 1,000 square feet and Water Tower has 174,000 square feet of development with 832 trip ends or 4.8 trip ends per 1,000 square feet or about two thirds of the trip ends. Originally, they had asked the developer to landbank about 200 parking spaces, and he landbanked some, but according to these figures he would not think that they would need as much parking as Wal-Mart. Mr. Griffith agreed. On page 2 of the memo, Mr. Cn-iffith stated that if tlus were to be considered as a shopping center on an average day, they would require 462 parking spaces versus 619 for a discount store, this was merely shown for comparison between the two. Mr. Gorris stated that theu there would be some logic to having fewer spaces. Mr. Thomas then asked if oue third less traffic would indicate a need for a thud less parking spaces. Mr. Griffith advised that tlus would be 25% less and clarified that this was for an average day. Mr. Thomas stated that originally he had asked for 200 landbanked spaces, which would be less than 25%, and they returned showing 70 spaces landbanked. He believed that they could landbank another 130 spaces and still provide enough parking, except that their teuants were requiring more spaces, even though they are supposed to be low volume users. He would like some uuderstandiug of why these spaces caunot be landbanked since, if they 3