11/26/2002 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

major access issues or safety issues. They evaluate sites based on those issues along with visibility, location, and traffic counts. He then presented the report he submitted. They took the most recent county engineer's traffic count and tried to determine where the traffic is coming from and what the pattern looks like (see attached report). He said Traff-Pro Consultants gave him some analysis of the report as well. Of all the cars coming into Wendy's, they wanted to know what percentage would have been part of the existing pattern. They found a good percentage is already part of the existing pattern and the majority of the traffic is from the south. He added it is imperative that people have easy access on and off of the site. There was further discussion about peak hours and the nuinber of cars. He mentioned night traffic and headlights. He said there seems to be an impression of incredible volume from open to close and that is not accurate. He compared the peak traffic period to the restaurant peak periods. They do not coincide. There is very little crossover. He mentioned the report from Mr. Griffith that indicated the overall traffic impact is minimal. Mr. Koeth then read the report (see attached). Mr. O'Malley advised the board that off site traffic considerations are not a proper basis for denial of a development plan. The code provides for, and the board is accustomed to, analyzing significant adverse impacts, pedestrian traffic safety, ingress and egress, and other considerations that relate to traffic. The Planning Commission does and should consider traffic, safety, and the impacts that are caused by this site. The evidence put forth from the applicant and the city engineer's analysis would suggest that the off site traffic conditions don't warrant a denial. Mr. Willse said there has been a great iinprovement to the intersection and it is not being inaximized. The lighting and timing issues still need to be resolved. He said it is vital for them to have the point of access that is a common driveway with CVS. Mr. Koeth asked if they have an agreement with CVS to share that entrance and exit. Mr. Willse indicated they do. Mr. Lasko pointed out it is to share the entrance and exit on both Clague and Lorain. Mr. Willse mentioned the access easement on the northern edge of the property. He said they would not propose developinent without the easements. They are 175 ft. from the intersection. He said the dumpster area is 75 ft. from the corner of the apartment building. The speaker post is roughly 60 ft. from the lot line. There is no fence there now but they will continue the board on board fence on the eastern end of the parcel. They are 115 ft. from the lot line to the south from the speaker post. They are aware of the feelings of the residents and they are willing to go above and beyond on landscaping and screening. They are prepared to do what they have to do to please the Commission and please the residents in terms of the aesthetics of the site. Mr. Koeth asked Mr. Rymarczyk to review the variances. Mr. Rymarczyk said they need a variance for not installing irrigation. Mr. Willse said they addressed that and it will be done. There was discussion of reducing the width of the southern drive to eliminate a variance. They discussed the sign variances requested. Mr. Willse indicated they could move the sign that is too close to the right of way. He said they have 30-40 ft. where they can move it and still comply. Mr. Koeth asked how wide that entrance is and it was confirined to be 34 ft. Mr. Spalding asked if that was the original width. Mr. Deichmann said it was created as a result of the widening project. Mr. Lasko said it would seem that at that location, given that it exists right before the road widens, you would want as wide a driveway as possible. The ingress and egress would be facilitated by having the wider driveway. Mr. O'Malley said on the subject of the lot area requirement, the zoning code addresses the need for a 1.5 acre lot for a restaurant in a general retail district. This lot is approximately an acre. That code was put into effect in 1991. When the CVS was built, or shortly thereafter, in February of 1999, Retail Today came to the Planning Commission for a lot split and there were variances needed. The variances were relating to the location of the canopy for CVS that is on the other parcel. As far as this parcel was concerned, it met code. However, he would note that the former chairman of the Planning Commission, Mr. Tallon, noted and reviewed that the lot could not accommodate a restaurant. There were other concerns raised. The lot exists but was created after the effective date of this area requirement and it appears from the records of the city that the previous owner was advised of the area requirement before the lot was created. Mr. Spalding asked if the reasoning behind the acreage requirement is related to parking issues. Mr. O'Malley said in 1991 a 3