Laserfiche WebLink
? <br />stated that the Ma.loneys, who live on Dorothy Drive did not necessarily want a <br />higher fence. Mrs. Schmitz asked that the city help protect them from this <br />business since they had worked to get some protection from this business when it <br />was originally built. Mr. Giesser explained what had happened in the past: they <br />had 30 foot light poles which had to be cut down because there was too much light <br />for'the neighbors, after the poles were cut down, there was still too much glare. <br />The issue went to court and a lighting.expert recommended that the lights should <br />be on 30 foot poles. Since neither the developer nor the city were willing to buy <br />new poles, a compromise was reached by shielding the lights. Mr. Schmitz <br />explained that the lights were so bright they blinded people driving down Decker <br />Roada Mr. Sohn believed that the developer should present sections showing the <br />relationship of the lights, building and neighbors property. Mr. Gallagher <br />suggested that by shining the lights forward in the back and a different type <br />shinning down in the front might be a compromise. Ms. Ferencik stated that the <br />lights could have a forward throw or a glare shield. The members discussed the <br />lighting among themselves. Again, Mr. Gallagher tried to explain the high hat <br />fixture. Ms.. Ferencik stated that a glare shield can -be added to any Spaulding <br />Company fixture. It was explained that it would be best to put the lights on the <br />south ea.st and south west corners. Mr. Giesser clarified that some of the lights <br />would be on timers, but the insurance company wants more security lights on a11 <br />night in the backm Mr. Zergott concluded that the.developer lmows that he has to <br />block the lights, and has stated that he intends to work with the neighbors. Mr. <br />Giesser advised that they would have at least one experimental light on Lorain <br />Roada Mrs. Botson is concerned about the lower lights and also pointed out that <br />one light might not be a problem, but if more were added there could be. Mr. <br />Giesser responded that they were trying to eliminate the lower lights. Mrs. <br />Maloney, who lives on Dorothy Drive, wondered if people driving down Dorothy <br />drive are going to see these lights. In reference to the fencing, it was <br />clarified that Mrs. Botson could see over the existing fence which ends before <br />the Pizza Hut's fence begins whieh is on the side of her property. She would like <br />the fence to go a11 the way to Lorain Road. Nir. Giesser also suggested that Pizza <br />Hut's fence might be made higher. It was clarified that a fence carmot go all the <br />way to Lorain Road, and also that Pizza Hut couid.not be required to raise their <br />fence, Mrs. Botson would have to talk with them. She would like someone to visit <br />her property to see the situation. Mr. Gallagher suggested that the developer <br />could put sorne kind of landscaping, possibility arborvitae, on her property to <br />shield the side view. Ms. Botson would have no problem with this, and advised <br />that she has spent over $1,500.00 on plantings on the rear of her lot. It was <br />clarified that she has a problem on the side of her property where she can see <br />the cars from her side windows. In reference to shielding the rear property lines <br />on Decker, those neighbors specified that they do not want a 12 foot.high fence, <br />they merely want a height that will shield their view. Mr. 5ohn reiterated that <br />there should be a cross section of the lot so that they could compare the <br />heights. It was also stated that there would be no sign on the east, but Mrs. <br />Maloney preferred that the sign on the west side not be i1lUminated because they <br />can see it from theix rear yard. Mr. Conway advised that a variance would be <br />needed for the second wall sign. Mr. Giesser statEd that this sign could be put <br />on a timer. B. Zergott moved that for the Oldsmobile of NortYi Olmsted proposal, <br />27871 Lorain Road, it has been agreed between the parties that any lighting would <br />first. be designed by a lighting expert, with some exampies made to see if it is <br />accommodating to both parties, if the lighting is not acceptable to both parties <br />it must return to the Board. That the feneing on the east elevation be raised to <br />no higher than 10 feet, but some height that would accommodate the neighbors, but <br />again no higher than 10 foot. That Halleen consider a couple of pines in Botson's <br />3