My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04/26/1994 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
1994
>
1994 Planning Commission
>
04/26/1994 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:32:37 PM
Creation date
1/29/2019 7:41:47 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
1994
Board Name
Planning Commission
Document Name
Minutes
Date
4/26/1994
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
area and direct it into their system. Mr. Deichmann believed that this plan would <br />be workable, but the drainage plans would have to be reviewed. Mr. Thomas asked <br />if he would prefer to have the ditch covered and get rid of the scaale altogether. <br />Mr. Deichmarm stated that even if the pipe ran the whole length of the property <br />line, he doubted the swale could be totally eliminated. Mr. Orlowski believed <br />that it would be better to pipe the entire ditch and install inlets which would <br />handle the water, the dirt run-off from the mound and the insect problems. Mr. <br />Deichmarm responded that what Mr. Newberry is describing sounds thoroughly <br />workable, but he would have to see the detailed plans and does not believe that <br />it is necessary for Plaming Commission to be locked into one type of <br />configuration. Mr. Orlowski stated that they were trying to eliminate the <br />infestation of mosquitoes, etc., and Mr. Thomas stated that the Commission did <br />not want to approve plans that would lock Fngineering into anything. Mr. <br />Deichmarm stated the exact configuration of the underground piping was not <br />critical at this point and that the developers cannot create a situation that <br />would cause ponding of water, that they have to meet the detention requirements <br />and would have to accommodate any water that flows into the ditch now. Mr. Miller <br />clarified that when this is done the area that used to be a swatnp will be drained <br />off. Mr. Deichmann explained that a swale is grass covered and can be mowede Mr. <br />Thomas stated that they would have to do something that was acceptable to both <br />Wal-Maxt and the condominituns since both would be using it and the condominiums <br />would be maintaining ite Mr. Bohlmann, Service Director, advised that the <br />intention is to eliminate the ditches that they currently have by putting in 800 <br />feet of pipe, 4 sections, and covering the area to have a gradual swale which is <br />cutable to reclaim the land so that the home owners there will have a neater <br />appearing area. Regarding the outdoor storage of bundled papers, Mr. Newberry <br />presented a drawing for the area which will be 6 feet wide, 24 feet deep, and 8 <br />feet tall, enclosed by a chain link fence on all four sides and over the top, in <br />the paved area that projects behind the building. Mr. Orlowski is totally against <br />any outside storage which will set a precedent. He stated that food stores keep <br />their bales inside the store and suggested that their bales can be stored inside, <br />and the bales could be removed daily in their empty trucks. Mr. Newberry and Mr. <br />Orlowski disagreed. Mr. Thomas was not in favor of any type of outdoor storage, <br />cardboard or landscape material, etca, as shown in the pictures. Mr. Newberry <br />objected and believed that a significant amount of the debris shown in pictures <br />was a result of construction activities, not the normal store operation. Mr. <br />Tallon believed that any debris created by the operation of the store should be <br />maintained within the walls of the store until it can be removed. In reference to <br />the lighting, Mro Newberry introduced Mr. McConnell, the lighting consultant. Mr. <br />McConnell stated that the plan presented is for 26 foot poles at the Commission's <br />request. The fixture used is a full cut-off luminaire (the lamp is inside the <br />housing so it is not visible), which will protect the neighboring property from <br />light spill over and will protect any up lighting to cut down on light pollution. <br />The 26 foot high poles will necessitate their having 31 poles, approximately 120 <br />feet apart; with the 40 foot high poles tha.t Wal-Mart normally uses, there would <br />only be 19 poles. There is little difference in cost, but the higher poles raise <br />the l.uminaires out of the line of sight of the motorists, reducing glare into <br />windshields. The higher poles will accommodate 4 luminaires and still maintain <br />uniform lighting levels. The Illuminating Engineering Society (I.E.S.) recommends <br />a 1 foot candle mi.nimm in this size parking lot, and a 4 to 1 average ratio, <br />Wal-Mart's normal criteria is 2.2 to 1 with the same minirmuns. On a 4 way <br />assembly, if a lamp goes out only 1/4 of the light is lost; only 2 luminaires can <br />be used on a 26 foot pole. In response to Mr. Orlowski's questions, Mr. McConnell <br />explained that basically all the fixtures are shielded by virtue of the lamp <br />being tucked up inside the housing, but there are also inside or outside shields <br />8
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.