03/22/2005 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Preserve the three existing Porter Road trees by not planting additional vegetation around them or adding briclcscape to the portion of the right-of-way immediately east of the trees. (Ms. Wenger questioned what level of impact the brick specifically would have on the existing trees) Replace the arborvitae on the north fence line with better planting materials. Although the Planner did not have an opportunity to review Mr. Wendell's recommendations with him, she left him a voicemail requesting that he submit his recommendations to the Planning Commission specifically regarding those issues. Ms. Wenger's report also advised that she could only comment upon a draft which was presented to her by Mr. Suhayda at their meeting: • Photometric plans must be submitted. She recommended that the footcandle readings of Lorain Road lights should be reduced somewhat from current levels, and that site lighting should be moderated within the parameters of both the illumination variance received and City Code requiring a zero footcandle reading at the residential property line. • Revised landscaping plans should be submitted that improve the landscaping/buffering on the north property line. The arborvitaes were recommended at a time when plans showed only a five foot planting area for landscaping. The area is now 20 feet wide, and can accommodate plantings that would serve as better buffers to sight and noise, such as evergreens. The applicant should also show how the four proposed spruce trees adjacent to the mound and fence would be adequate to screen the site: • Elevations must be submitted. Building Commissioner Conway reported that the photometric plans were reduced to 9.7 and the variance allowed readings of 10.4. Mr. Spalding advised that the Commission received the photometrics just prior to the meeting and did not have a chance to review them. However, from glancing at the photometrics, it appears, that the applicant has met the zero requirements at the residential lot line. Mr. Durbin advised that he has not seen any plans other than the photometric. Mr. O'Malley recommended that a lot consolidation plat be filed and docketed for Planning Commission's approval. , Applicant's comments: Mr. Suhayda advised that the plans were modified according to the suggestions of the Planning Director and City Forester. He said the`changes that were previously inade when they first came before the Commission are now null and void. However, they now know which lots are to be used. He believed that at the last meeting, the Commission spoke about preparing the lot consolidation plat prior to obtaining a building permit. Mr. Spalding informed him that they have been waiting 3-4 years for the lot consolidation. Mr. O'Malley said the City Engineer needs to review the actual plat. He informed the Commission to accept a separate landscaping plan that would show the recommendations made by the City Forester. Mr. Spalding told the applicant that what they submitted does not coristitute a landscape plan, saying it is haxd to interpret. 2