03/10/1992 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

? coming closer to.him he would like a fence. intercom and the neighbor behind the Lexur the cars driving around the lota Mr. Mathe but pointed out that many people cut through way around from the bus stop, he thought p more pines. AZr. Thomas suggested a mound mig that there would be enough room to inst'all light added on the corner of the building directed away from the homes. Mr. Stephin Lexus Dealership, advised that the lights fr all night long, and since there is no fenc advised that there is an ordinance governi make a com-Dlaint to the BuildinR Depaxtmer t ? He also stated that he can hear the Dealership can see the lights from as has no problem install.ing a fence, his lot to keep from walking all the !rhaps it would be better to add some it be preferable. Mr. Stoyanov stated a mound. There will be one security and Mr. Mathews stated it would be , the neighbor who lives behind the xn tha.t business shine into his house e, he can see into the lot. He was ig that and Mr. Conway suggested he t and thev woutd look into it. Mr. Skoulis moved to refer the North Olmsted Nissan proposal to the Architectural Review Board and the Safety Department for.their recommendations and suggest that the developer provide the A.R.B. and the Safety Department a rendering of the new landscaping, including the extension of the buffering on the ea.st side of the property, and the recommendation for buffering the rear of the property, whether it is a combination of mounding and trees or whatever they decide to go with, and that the Engineering Department should check the retention, seconded by J. Thoma,s, and tmanimously approved. IV. NEW DEVELOPMENTS AND SUBDIVISIONS: No items. V. COMMUNICATIONS: Ord. 92-4: Mr. Tallon, who had been involved in designing the ordinance while he was on Council, explained that he started to formulate this ordinance several years ago, but since the City was in litigation involving lighting, it had to be set aside. After the court case was settled, he re-activated the ordinance and it was revised and worked out with General Electric. The ordinance deals with lighting in comanercial areas which is.a nuisance to residential areas: defining it, explaining how to detect it, and setting certain standardsa It had been his understanding that there would be no grandfather clause and existing lighting would have to conform. Assistant Law Director I)ubelko believed that since the ordinance will be in the Zoning Code the grandfather clause would apply. To avoid being grandfathered, it would have to be regulating a nu.isance situation. Building Commissioner Conway suggested that it could be put in the property maintenance section for commercial structures. Mr. Dubelko thought perhaps it could be put in business regulations. Mro Skoulis pointed out that Section (g) sets forth penalties for non-compliance, and he is .concerned that this could be interpreted that everyone must comply. After further study, Mr. Dubelko had concerns about this being in the Zoning Codes, since it is regulatory and is to be enforced against existing lighting where it is considered to be a nuisance and believed that this should be held for further study. Since the Commission has ha.d this ordinance for some time, it was decided to forward this to Couneil with recommendations that it be might better be placed in a different code. He suggested that the Commission should consider if they want this to be enforced against existing situations. T. Morgan moved that Ord. 92-4 be forwarded to Council with the following recommendations from the Planning Commission: 1) that there is some concern about the regulatory nature contained in this ordinance, whether, in fact, it is in the proper section of the Zoning Code, or if it is even appropriate to be put in the Zoning Code; 2) also, whatever ordinance is finally adopted should contain the provision that lighting for existing.