Laserfiche WebLink
? <br />He advised that one of their long term goals is to fill in the row of windows on <br />,the rear of the building, and weather strip and install sound proof curtains over <br />?the aluminum doors facing the residents to reduce the sounds coming from the <br />building. Mr. Martin agreed to detail this on their plans. Mr. Thomas asked Mr. <br />Dubelko, since the owner identified that this as a dance hall, could the owner be <br />required to install the soundproofing as stipulated by the code for dance halls. <br />J. R. Thomas denied that he called it a dance ha.ll, he merely stated that there <br />would be dancing. Mr. Dubelko advised that if the Building Commissioner made a <br />determination that this is a dance hall, it would be required. In response to Mr. <br />Skoulis' question, Mr. Martin advised that one portion of the roof with the gable <br />over it was a Tectum roof which clid have a substantial amount of sound <br />insulation, insulation could be applied on top of the dropped ceiling in the <br />covered by the other roof. He believed that this should be addressed in stages in <br />order to see what is effective; first sealing off the glass windows with <br />insulation, curtains, etc., and then covering the doors, after which it should be <br />checked out to see if there is an improvement. He also suggested that some of <br />these complaints can be ha.ndled by management. The lighting problems will be <br />addressed. ASr. Thomas suggested that since the green area in the front was the <br />same property this area could be used for parking and the rear area left as a <br />buffer. Mr. AZartin stated that they did consider this, but since the rear is the <br />lower, the drainage would still be to the back. City Engineer Deichmann stated <br />that the retention could be in the rear even if the parking is in the front. J. <br />R. Thomas stated that they did consider it, but they did not lmow what the future <br />use of the parcel will be. He maintained that there is retention on the site now, <br />and stated that the flooding problems in that subdivision have existed since the <br />subdivision was builta Mr. Thomas believed that if the parking were brought <br />further away from the residents, there would be fewer problems with the <br />residents. r1r. Martin was not sure that sufficient parking can be installed in <br />this area since the parking would be shifted around and could still impact the <br />neighbors. He originally thought it would be best to install the parking where <br />there had been parking previously and installing curbs around the back would help <br />the flooding problems in the neighbors yards, but they will look into it. He <br />believed that the noise problems comes from within the btiilding. J. R. Thomas <br />stated that he has checked the property on many occasions to check-on the noise <br />level and the debris, and that they are trying to keep someone in the pa.rking lot <br />to prevent some of these problems. The developers agreed will consider presenting <br />a revised plan for the Architectural Revieia Board and Mr. Martin advised that the <br />dumpster will be relocated and enclosed. The neighbors started discussing the <br />proposal with the developers and Vice Chairr.ian Orlowski suggested they continue <br />their discussion in the caueus room. J. Thomas moved to refer the plans for <br />Nightfall Night Club to the Architectural Review Board with the following points <br />to be reviewed, discussed., and provided by the developer. 1) that the plan be <br />modified to indicate parking in the southeast quadrant of the garcel and that the <br />plan show an elimination of parking along the north side toward the fence and <br />instead that area be retained as landscaped bufier, we ask the developer to <br />provide this in the spirit of co-operation of compromise and it is our hope that <br />he riake every effort to work with the city and the residents to remove some of <br />the parking in the areas of concern in the rear. 2) That the A.R.B. review the <br />buffer along the fence as well as any landscaping surrounding the building to <br />either improve or review the sound buffering capability of that landscapi:ng. 3) <br />That the handicapped spaces be moved closer to the entrance. 4) That additional <br />landscaping and mounding which has been volunteered by the developer along the <br />south side of the parcel, along Lorain Road, be detailed and indicated on the <br />plan. 5) That all lighting on the parcel, both on the buildin; and on the lot, be <br />4