05/04/2006 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

'safety factors peftaini.ng to nighfly banking. Although Oluo has not adopted tlie law Fifth Third uses it as their standazd. Mr. O'Malley reviewed that the law in question states 10 foot candles atid city codes allow 15 foot candles at the ATM and the appIicants' pla.ns show 21 foot candies. Therefore city codes already exceed the standard in which the bank has adopted. Mr. Conway suggested that the applicants photometric plan did not provide an average foot candle reading for the site and if the average was provided he believes that the applicant coiald be under the 15 foot candles under the canopy. Therefore the appIicant could witbdraw variance #1 from their request. Mr. Weber advised that he would withdraw variance request # 1 and provide the information to the building department. Mr. Burke questioned why the lighting on the site was not being reduced after working hours. Mr. Weber advised it dvas for the safety of the evening patrons. 1VIr. Convuay advised that the applicant couid reduce the wattage of the outer perimeter lights. Mr. Weber advised that for safety they would not want any dark spots on the lot and their readings are already lower than what is allowed. J. Maloney moeed to grrant Fifth Third Bank of 28856/28890 Lorain Road their reqnest for varianCe (1123.12), which coBsists of a new developffient ancl the followiBg variances are gr$nted as affiended anal agreed apon: 5. A variance for lighiing to be Ieft on all night rvithout reduction, (code requires 50% reductaon, applicant sLows none), section (1161.12 (d)). 6. A variance for 1addition81 waH sign (night depository), (code permits 1, appOcant shows 2), section (1163.27 (a)). 8. A variance for Iaght trespassing over property line, (code requires 0 fc, appGcant shows .9), section (1161.12 (c)). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section: (1161.12 (d)), (1163.27 (a)) and (1161.12 (c)). T. Kek seconded the motion roli caTi on fhe motion; J. Maioney, M.13iver, T. Kelly: yes and J. Burke: no on request #5 and yes on requests #6 &#8. Variances Granted During roll call of the motion Mrso Diver advnsed that her yes was for safety reasons the applicant brought up. The clerk advised the applicants that they were scheduled to meet with the Building Zoning and Development Committee on Monday, Ivlay 15, 2006 @ 7:00 pm. 6. N-01-t I A ao 2c .c ,... . ,. .? .. f?a . .:.t??. i,.,.J--.g, „ 4 cn . . , ,- • • > > > > , soction • ? " - Mr. O'Malley advised that if it vvas the intent of the new tenant to leave the sign structure and only replace the plastic faee for the new sign then a variance is not required for just re-facing an existing sign. He apologized for the issue not being brought up at the beginning of tihe meeting and tllanked the applicant for being so patient. 8. 12