07/13/2016 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

six new pole mounted fixtures. The revised photometric plan sufficiently addresses prior code violations pertaining to excessive illumination levels, light fixture setback from a residential property line, and pole base height. Additionally, while the plans show the light bleed at 0.2 near the neighboring property line instead of the required 0.0, the difference is inconsequential given the close proximity to the property line. When the Commission is prepared to approve the project, motions are required for both the conditional use permit and the development plan. The Commission should refer to the standards in Chapter 1118 in their discussion of the conditional use pennit. The Planning and Design Commission should make recommendations on the variances to the Building and Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. DiFranco stated that the proposed storm water management complied with the code. He recorrunended that the applicant install a continuous concrete curb along the northern edge of the property instead of the proposed bumper blocks. Mr. Watkins stated that the storm water basin was installed to address existing issues at the property. The storm sewers in the parking lot are nonfunctional and will be replaced. A minimum of 12-inch diameter sewer pipe will be installed, instead of the existing 6-inch pipe. An edge drain has been added along the western edge of the new lot and along the northern edge of the new and existing parking lots. The trench drain will be installed to grade to help prevent water from going to the northern end of the property. He stated that the continuous concrete curbing was not proposed due to cost concerns and the church is requesting the ability to use cttrbing to match what exists in the parking lot. Mr. Watkins believed that the two mechanisms proposed are sufficient to capture all water in the retention basin. Three parking spaces were removed in order to move the basin back as suggested. There are two depressions in the basin according to the EPA regulations and the basin should run dry between rainfalls. In addition to moving the light poles, lighting is proposed along the driveway. Mr. Malone clarified that the last three variances listed on the variance write-up sheet would no longer apply with the new lighting plans. Mr. Malone read Mr. Rerko's comments that he did not understand why continuous curbs are not being proposed due to being able to be damaged by snow plows easily. Mr. Malone agreed and added that the curb stops are only 2 ft. away from the neighboring property, which would not leave enough room to keep vehicles from entering the other property. He asked why the retention basin was placed so close to Dover Center Road and he suggested that the basin be placed somewhere else on the property or use bio-retention inethods instead of having a hole in the ground. Mr. Malone also added that the landscape buffer was not adequate if the retention basin were to stay where it is proposed to be. Ms. Nader believed that the curbing should be required on the north side and should be concrete ODOT Type 6. She asked how the water is anticipated to be drained since there is no slope to the lot. She asked how the edge drain would help in a large storm event and whether the landscaping around the basin would be enough to protect people from entering the basin. Ms. Nader noted that there is no duinpster enclosure shown for the dumpster in the back of the property. She also stated that the property is well kept and an asset to the city. Mr. Watkins stated that the basin is proposed along Dover Center due to cost concerns. He added that the landscaping could be increased and a dumpster enclosure would be installed if required. Mr. Watkins added that the curbing would need to be installed in the new and existing lots to be effective. Mr. Schumann was concerned about the effect on the resident's property adjacent to the retention basin.