03/08/1994 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e f line to a retail use. Mr. Grasso explained that they are required to install a landscape buffer on the east. Mr. Conway explained that if they co-develop the property a landscaped buffer would not be required, but they would have to submit the easement agreement to the Planning Commission. Mr. Grasso agreed. He explained that the proposed landscape plan does not conform to the plans as yet, since the site plan was revised after conferring with Mr. Conway. They will be adding lights to the rear parlcing lot, along with some trees both in the back aud along the front. They have no lighting plan at present. Mr. Thomas advised that a lighting plan includ.ing height of the poles, wattage of the lights, location of the poles and any lights on the building would have to be submitted to the Arclutectural Review Board. IV1r. Grasso estimated that there would be about 220 feet to the rear of the parking lot and there is some growth there at present and they will be adding more. Mr. IVMer did not believe there would be enough screening behind the parking area. Mr. Crrasso explained that there was existing growth behind the new plantinLgs. Tlie dumpster is in back of easement, but if they inake a looped driveway it would have to be relocated, perhaps to the north east corner of the build'uig. Mr. Baglow, a ueiglibor to the rear, was mainly conceined how the parking wou.ld effect the property behind him. Mr. Grrasso assured him that the growt}t in the rear would not be removed. He was also advised that the drainage would be toward Lorain Road, not to the rear and the lights would probably be 12 to 15 feet high and will be added to the back of the property so that they shine toward the building. Mr. Thomas explained that they wou.ld be required to slueld the lights so that there would be no spill over onto his property and the Architectural Board could make sure there would be enough screening to shield any headlights from his property. Mr. Gorris advised Mr. Barlow that the Arclutectural Review Board would meet on March 16th at 5:30 p.m. and he could attend that if he is iuterested. Mr. Grasso estimated that there was probably iu excess of 300 feet between the end of the parking lot and Mr. Barlow `s property and assured Mr. Barlow that the woods would stay. Mr. Thomas gave Mr. Barlow a copy of the plan. Ngr. Grasso asked if they could separate the site work from the building so they could get started on the interior work and the handicapped ramp. Mr. Conway asked if the members had any problems with the eateiior changes, the handicapped ramp and the canopy over the new stairwell. The meinbers had no problems with these changPS if the Architectiual Board did not, however, Mr. Thomas advised that the canvas awning could not be illuininated so that light glowed through. Mr. Grasso stated that it would not. J. Thomas moved to refer the Realty One proposal to the Arclutectural Review Board for theu input ou the landscaping plan, at that time the developers are to provide a change to the plan to include a loop arouud drive elitninating whatever parking spaces they believed to be appropriate and also they are to provide a lighting plau as requested tlus eveving. It is to be was noted that t]ie parkulg spaces must be subject to the Building Commissiouer's approval, seconded by K. O'Rourke, and unanimously approved. It was decided that tlus proposal would not have to return to the Commission if it is approved by the ArchitectLUal Board. Mr. Conway will present