Planning Commission Minutes 2006 03 09

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes MARCH 9, 2006 Page 13 of 16 screening. The proposed screening requirements do not met the CDDSG requirements. 3) The design of the proposed service drive and adjacent site improvements does not promote a harmonious relationship with the adjacent properties to the west. . However, based on the direction of the Commission and if the applicant indicates a willingness to address the additional screening requirements the application should be continued to allow the applications to be redesigned. Commission Questions of Staff: None Applicant Presentation: Chris Kambar, 3445 Winton Place, Suite 208, Rochester, NY representing Lowe's discussed the following: . The purpose of the drive aisle is to create a safer customer entrance by having the forklifts operating that the back of the building instead of in the parking lot / front of the building. . The store manager has identified and put into writing a plan to maintain the drive aisle so it is not used for any storage. . They are willing to continue the present masonry wall and incorporate additional landscaping. . They requested either approval with conditions but would accept a continuance to allow Lowe's the opportunity to work with Staff and the neighboring property owner instead of a denial. Commission Questions of Applicant: Loo inquired if Kambar had worked with other Lowe's and do other stores have access on all four sides. Kambar stated that he had and the majority is required by code to have access for emergency vehicles. Dalton inquired of Johnstone what would it take for staff to support this application. Johnstone discussed the 8' masonry wall, additional landscaping and maintenance of the drive aisle. Pritchard discussed with Kambar his concern regarding the storage of non-sale items behind the store. He used a photograph of the area that included display shelves and racks. He asked how the applicant would police that area to be sure it is in compliance with the PUD. Kambar discussed the responsibility of the store manager and the letter he had provided. He also stated that because of a prior commitment he was unable to attend this meeting. Lipton stated to the other Commission that they as a Commission become more pro-active in requesting compliance. Pritchard asked Johnstone if he had had any contact with the neighboring property owner regarding the possible screen wall. Johnstone confirmed that he had been contact with them and the possible screen wall proposal. Loo inquired why staff was recommending the 8' height.