04/06/2006 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 sections (1161.12 (d)) and (1138.05 (d)). Mr. O'Neil & Mr. Bower owners, Mr. Ziska the architect, Mr. Nickel the engineer, Mr. Messerini the director of the facility and Mr. Fetterman a neighbor, each came forward to be sworn in and address the request. Mr. Ziska indicated that that the issues before the board are residential light fixtures that will ensure continuity throughout the site and will have cut-offs to bloclc the light from the abutting residents. The 4 foot 9 inch side yard variance is for the south end of the new building. The new addition is phase two of the building and the third phase once built will close in the corridor creating a quad. There is an existing 6-foot board on board fence which runs the length of the southern property line and by maintaining the natural vegetation along the south property line it will provide buffering for the neighbors. The new building will also bloclc traffic noise from Broolcpark Road and I-480. Mr. Conway reviewed that the proposed light fixtures are not full cut-off fixtures as they are not recessed into a can. The applicants are proposing to provide shields over one side of the four sided light fixtures which faces the residents. Mr. Fettei-man questioned how the new building would affect his and his neighbor's property values as they will be so close to their property. He is concerned about the amount of light which already shines into his home now from the second and third floor windows of the existing building. He aslced if the applicants would plant evergreens amongst the existing trees along the fence line to shield their lights. The existing trees are not in good condition and most are dead and need to be cleaned out. Mr. Ziska indicated that there would be no new residential lights added along the southern property and the new building would face east and west. Mr. Fetterman believed that if the applicants were willing to be good neighbors they would provide evergreen trees now before the 3rd building is built as those lights will be closer and even more offensive then the current lights. Mr. Nickel suggested that the area was already dense and to plant the large trees being requested could not be done without damaging existing trees in the area. Mr. Burlce voiced that he believed that Mr. Fetterman had a legitimate concern. Mrs. Diver voiced that she also felt the neighbor had a legitimate concern due to the last building which would be just as high and even closer to the neighbors. She asked when the final building would be constnicted and suggested the applicants look at adding additional landscaping at that time if not now. Mr. Zislca stated they were not sure when the final building would be constructed but could address the issue at that time. Mr. Fetterman felt the applicants should have built their second building straight out west away from the residents not towards the residents. J. Maloney moved to grant Wellington Place of 4800 Clague Road their request for variance (1123.12), which consists of a new wing to existing structure, site modifications and that the following variances are granted as amended: 1. A variance for not having full cut off fixtures, (code requires all, applicant shows none), section (1161.12 (d)). Condition upon proposed shields being used as described in the applicants plans to restrict lights facing residential areas to ensure zero foot-candle readings at lot lines. 2. A 4 foot 9 inch variance for side yard setback, (code requires 54'9", applicant shows 50'), section (1138.05 (d)). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 sections (1161.12 (d)) and (1138.05 (d)). T. Kelly seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved. 6. T J Maxx; 25959 Lorain Road: (WRD #4) Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of a new sign The following variance is required: 8