09/18/1996 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

? Referred by plauuing commission September 10, 1996. Mr. Stitz, architect, explained the proposal is to construct a merchant style building. The following neighbors were present: Mr. & Mrs. Breuhler, Mr. & Mrs. Johnson, Mr. Calmer and Ms. Moyer. Mr. Stitz noted he was involved in this project a couple years ago, and is back with the same materials and light fixtures. He stated there is approximately 1.9 acres of land and the building proposed is approximately 15,080 square feet. There will be 3.5 cars per thousand square feet for a total of 53 spaces; 22 of which will be landbanked. The engineering department and planning commission requested that the 40 foot drive be reduced to a 34 foot width coming off Lorain Road. Upon review of this option, Nlr. 5titz believed it would be more feasible to leave the driveway off Lorain at a 40 foot width. The owner wishes to maintain the entrance on Root Road for emergency situations. 1Vdr. Stitz stated the general field brick will be a jumbo belden brick in a polar white color; whereas the brick detail will be a jumbo belden brick in a harbour mist color. The windows will be insulated glass most likely the dark aluminum. Mr. Yager suggested that a Champaign color would be more effective as it would coordinate with the brick. In response, Mr. Stitz stated that the glass is usually dark and a darker frame would be better. 'I'lie trash area will be brick, a wood gade with a tubular frame. The roof top units will uot be visible because the side walls are twenty feet high and the roof is about fifteen. There will be 25 foot lugh light poles which are a spalding Cambridge number CEIM4004, a 25 foot mounding height, with no glare fixtures and a forward throw. Nlr. Stitz presented a drawing showing the photometrics and stated, number 4 indicates the forward spread wluch he believed is a inetal halide bulb. He noted that there will be no pole lights in the rear. There will be decorative cau lights on the front of the building with. approximately four foot candles. Tlie rear of the building will be lit offthe building itself and there will be a box light wash. In response to Mr. Liggett's question, Mr Stitz promised that there would be no glare on Root Road. In response to Mr. Zergott's question, Mr. Conway clarified that the lighting should be kept down to the height of the building so that the poles are not above the building. gie believed the lighting should be kept as minimal as possible without jeopardizing anyone's safety. It was clarified by the end of the drive there will be only about a one foot candle. Mr. Liggett thought there is an adequate buffer between this property and the surrounding neighbors. Mr. Calmer, a neighbor, wondered if the lights would be left on 24 hours a day. Mr. Stitz stated the client would have to answer that, and Mr. Shepherd is on vacation. The neighbors would like the lights turned off duriug non-business hours. Mr. Stitz reiterated that the lighting is very minimal. Mr. Gallagher suggested that some type of motion detector be used for the lighting. The neighbors maintained they would like the lights turned off by a certain time, as Mr. Gallagher's suggestion would mean that anyone coming in the parking lot would activate the lights. Mr. Zergott asked, if this will go back to planning commission, as this is their jurisdiction. Mr. Stitz noted, if they maintain the drive off of Root Road this would have to come back to planning commission. In response to Mr. Stitz question, Mr. Gallagher clarified thus far this board is recommending that the ligliting be held to one foot at the end of pavement and the lights are not to exceed the bouudaries of the pavement. Mr. Yager suggested, if this does come back to planning commission, they should specify the hours of the lighting. The neighbors were generally concerned about the following: lighting; visual mass; and the green space. Tlie neighbors felt tlus is a visual mass because it virtually occupies the entire lot. They felt that the green space was uot adequate. The neighbor's major concern was the Root Road access, as they believed it would cause traffic flow problems