01/24/2006 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

adverse impacts and how they can be eliminated or reduced by specific changes the commission would insist upon being made. Mr. Flurry, with Star Architect, recapped the changes made to accommodate the variances which were denied. He believed that the trees along the north shown on the plans belonged to the abutting neighbors. However they will provide adequate buffering using landscaping along the area. Dealing with traffic issues there is now three lanes for access and egress and the height bar was moved at the request of the ARB to alert vehicles entering the site of the height restrictions. Mr. Nelson indicated that it was not uncommon to come up against resistance from neighboring residents or business owners when first coming in an area however once the car wash is in plac:e everyone realizes their concerns are unfounded. He referenced a letter submitted pertaining t:o his other location which has 5 wash bays and has never created traffic problems along StaTe Route 18. He further referenced data dated 2002 from the O.D.O.T. web site in relation t:o traffic patterns along State Route 10 and North Olmsted's Brookpark Road. In regards to trie proposed dryers that would be used on the site decibel readings at 40 feet from the entranc;e would be 78.5 and another 40 feet back would calculate to 61 decibels and decibel readings of 61 equates to a normal spealcing voice level. The nearest apartment or condo is 130 feet from their property so there should be no issues pertaining to noise. Mr. Flurry reviewed that a photometric plan was submitted which meets all city requirements and their engineer would be meeting winh Ms. Becker to make sure all engineering requirements are met. Mr. Nelson believed that a vinyl fence provided an efficient barrier for sound and if a brick wall was installed along the north the trees would be damaged. He is not refusing to construct the brick wall he just feels there is rio need for it. Mr. Lasko indicated that the current plans did not show a brick wall or a vinyl fence. Mr. Flurry said that they would be landscaping the rear property line with trees as the ARB suggested thf;y did not want a fence or brick wall. Furthermore if one or the other had to be used ARB preferred a vinyl fence. Mr. Malone advised that if a brick wall was placed within 15-feet of the existing trees it could damage the trees. Mr. Bohlmann believed that if the trees shown on the plans were in fact the neighbors then there should be no reason why the applicants could not construct a briclc wall or fence without damaging the neighboring trees. Trees alone will not buffer neighbors from car lights, fumes, or stereo noises. Mr. Nelson believed that brick was too expensive but would be willing to add a vinyl fence to provide added buffering. Mr. Yager said the proposed brick building is nice looking and the lot would be hard to develop for any use however it should be noted that abutting neighbors and owners have submitted letters voicing concerns. He felt the proposal should be tabled until accurate plans were received. Mr. Nelson voiced that he was approaching his deadlines regarding purchasing the lot and urged the commission to approve the plan and move him forward. Mr. Yager felt that accurate plans would be beneficial to everyone. Mrs. Meredith aslced about the volume of the speakers. Mr. Nelson advised that the speaker would only be heard by the driver and the noises for movements can be controlled. Mr. Bohlmann suggested placing an escape lane along the eastern side of the building or making the car wash a single bay instead of two bays. Ms. Meredith agreed that an emergency lane w'as needed. The Building Department reviewed that the landscape buffer was required to meet setbaclcs. Mr. King, the Attorney for both apartments, said the building is too large for the site. They are also concerned about noise volume, traffic volume, car fumes, headlights and unwanted 6