09/28/1993 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The lighting in the rear was approved by the Cor,unission within the last year. Neighbors, Mrs. Duffy and Mrs. LaRosa, were present, Mr. Dubelko stated that when the lighting was changed, the Cor:?nission did not have an opportunity to review the whole development, and he is not sure the lighting in the front was brought up to code and it could be addressed with these plans. Mr. Conway stated that there are complaints about glare frcm, the front lights. He clarified the lighting ordinance had not been passed, the only direction given is that lights cannot glare into adjacent properties (1161.12). Mrs. Duffy and Mrs. LaRosa stated tha.t the lights in the front shine over the building, lighting up their back yard, but explained that the owner is trying to shield the lights. Most of the lights go out about 9:30 p.m. Mr. Dubelko explained that at one tine Mr. Halleen did change the lights on his property on the south side of Lorai.n because of glare onto neighbors' property. Mr. Giesser clarified that originally the plans called for 30 foot poles on the front of that lot, the city made them cut them down to 20 feet, even though their lighting expert believed that they should ha.ve been on 30 foot poles in order for theri to shine down. When the poles were cut down, the glare tvms worse. After the issue went to court, the lights were shielded to cut down the glare. Another proposal for that lot was before the Commission a few months ago, and is still being held up in order for the owners to Naork with the residents to change all the lights in the lot. They did install one light, but it was worse than what was there, then another expert suggested shielding the lights, but the shield did not work. Sinee then-they have devised a shield that would be placed behind the light which will-shield the glare from the properties to the rear. They have installed one which seems to work. Mrs. Duffy, who lives in the first house behind this lot, claimed that the five new pole lights now glare onto East Park, but the owners are working on shielding the light in the back at this time. She again conplained about the lights in front on Lorain Road. Mr. Thoma.s advised that this would be forwarded to.the Architectural Review Board and the Commission will ask that the Building Department inspect the lights and mark specific lights which need attention. All of the lights might not have to be shielded by the time this proposal gets to B.Z.D. but they must be identified as having to be corrected and the developer r.iust commit to have the lighting probler.i corrected within a specific time period. J. Thomas moved to refer the Halleen Chevrolet development to the ArchitecturalReview Board with the request that the Building Department determine which lights are violating Section 1161, and to mark those lights so that when this gets baek to the Commission, an addendiun can be attached to the motion putting on a time period to correct this problem, seconded by rTrs. 0'Rourke, and unanimously approved. IV. NEW DEVFLOPT11MS AND SUBDNISIONS: 1) ilennie Homes: Block "A" Lot Splita The proposal is to split Block "A" of the recorded (volu me 262 page 50) Cinnamon Woods Dedication Plat into three (3) residential lots. Location is the laest side of Barton Road abutting Olmsted Township at the North Olmsted south corporate line, and abutting the east property line of Cinnamon ldoods Development. Note that current zoning is Mixed Use entirely, and adjacent to "A" Residence, Single on the north, and to "B" Residence, Single, directly across Barton Road on the east. 'Itao of the three proposed sublots conform to "B" Residence requirements for frontage and area, while proposed Parcel 3 has less than the required frontage for a"B" Residence Zone. The proposal does not include a rezoning request. Mr. Zwick, engineer, presented plans. Mr. Gorris noted that these were the remnant lots of the previous Christ The King Development which never materialized, and these lots now back up to the Cinnamon Woods development, but the lots to the north are "A" residence, the homes across Barton are "B" 3