09/10/1996 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

? will lighted station at night, than one that is darker. He has no problem with this proposal whatsoever and believed the city should prefer this in order to reduce vandalism and police calls. Mr. Tallon advised Mr. Showalter the commission would be recommending that they lower the height of the poles, lower the lamp wattage, show shielding to all the residential area, have 0 foot candles at the residential lot lines, and bring back the photmetrics of this to the next meeting. Mr. Showalter stated that he respected the commission's decision, but he did not agree with it. These lights have been purchased and he has a financial hardship, since if he does not renew this by the 30th of September, he will lose the $20;000.00 on the franchise fee. Mr. Tallon advised that the next meeting was on September 24th. Mr. Showalter did not believe that Burger King would agree to this; because they have image standards for restaurants and he has spent $120,000. to improve that facility: Since he will not be changiug the lighting, he will have to pay an additional $40,000.00 on the franchise. Mr. Showalter left the chambers. Assistant Law Director Dubelko advised that it sounded like the developer would not go along with the suggested changes, but he did not actually withdraw his proposal, so he believed that the commission should vote on it. He stated that under the code, the commission is authorized to make changes in a proposal, but since the developer neither agreed to them, nor did he unequivocally withdraw his proposal, he suggested that the commission vote on the proposal as it is. He further stated that the commission d'xd have the option of voting on the changes that were they. The members.agreed to vote on the proposal as presented. M.T. Dubelko read Section 1126.04 and explained that this would cover any exterior change that the commission believed would have an adverse impact on the neighbors. Mr. Tallon explained to Mr. Nowak, the commission was trying to prevent people from using light as a sign, and if this proposal was approved, the other businesses would want more lighting as we1L He believed that they could accomplish the same effect by lowering the light poles and reducing the wattage. Mr. Nowak was concemed about security. R. Tallori moved not to accept.the Burger King, 26270 Lorain Road, proposal to revise and increase lighting on property, the reason for refusing this proposal is because of the intrusion of ' light on the residential neighborhood, and the committee had made several recommendations to the developer to lessen this probiem, but the developer saw fit not to comply. This would definitely impose on the health, safety, aud welfare of the neighbors. The motion was seconded by T. Brennan, and unanimously approved. 3) Mongello & Associates, Inc. Office Building, 25128 Lorain Road (former fire station). Proposal to remodel existing building for office use. Referral to board of zoning appeals will be required. Mr. Mongello, architect, and Ms. Kopco, from his office, presented plans for the renovation and rear office addition on the foriner fire station. Since the existing building is in the setback, they will need several variances: a variance for the buffering on the east side because they may enter into a reciprocal agreement with the adjacent neighbor; a 3 foot variance for the buffering in the rear; and a special permit to add.to a non-conforming building. It was agreed that the width of the rear drive could be reduced and the 3 foot rear yard variance could be elimimated. They have no specific tenant at this time; they have refusecl several restaurants and au automotive repair businesses. At this time they are dealing with a medical group for an M.R.I. Imaging Center. Mr. Mongello explained that they could taper down the grade on the east side, 3