Laserfiche WebLink
underground detention will be added. Some site lights will be modified and added. The <br />landscaping will mimic the existing landscaping along the storefronts. The owner will replace <br />all plantings which have died throughout the site. The building will be constructed mainly of <br />briclc which will match the Value City briclc. There will be a series of glass windows, an <br />anodized aluminum awning, and additional smolced glass at the main entrance. The only parking <br />corral is the enclosure along the front of the building. Carts are locked up and require a deposit <br />to use which is refunded upon the carts return to the corral. They found that requiring a deposit <br />ensures the parlcing lot remains cart free. <br />Mr. Rerlco aslced for the two new column elements to rise just above the roof line similar to <br />Value City. Mr. Malone said due to the plaza's landscaping improvements which reduced <br />asphalt surface, he supports the parking variance. He aslced that the planter Uoxes be deeper to <br />inimic the existing planters in front of Value City which has boxwood with Stella D'Oro <br />daylilies along the front. Mr. Rerlco questioned the photometric plan which had very high <br />readings along the rear property line of 8.4 foot-candles. The rear of the lot abuts residential <br />homes and the readings are extremely high regardless if they are existing conditions. Mr. Kerr <br />said the rear light poles are preexisting and would remain. The two new light poles being added <br />are along the front not the back. Mr. O'Malley said that lighting was within the scope of the <br />cominissions review regardless if the lighting is preexisting. Mr. Rerko said cutoff shields or <br />other means should be used to reduce the light trespass. Mr. Ken said they would loolc at what <br />could be done to lower the foot-candles. <br />Ms. Solcolowslci said lighting is an issue from the site as the lights from the lot shines into <br />neighbor's hoines and in her yard which is protected by tall arborvitaes. Mr. Lasko said that the <br />property owner has always worlced to ineet the City's requests and does not doubt they will <br />address the lighting concern, but does agreeing to add shields to lower the readings truly address <br />the issue? Mr. O'Malley said codes require photometric plans extend unti10.0 foot-candles are <br />reached. He was surprised that the building department's write-up did not address lighting. The <br />coinmission can table the matter to address the lighting issues or the commission can require the <br />code be met. Mr. Glazer said they would lower the foot-candles along the rear of the site, <br />whether that entails shields or other means. <br />Mr. Laslco aslced the Commission members and applicant if the project should be tabled to <br />address the lighting issue. Mr. Kerr said that their timeline is very short and they would lilce to <br />continue to move forward with the understanding that the owner would address the photometric <br />plan issues to meet the City's standards. If a specified level is not possible then they would <br />return to seelc a variance. Ms. Wenger recommended separating the lighting plan from the <br />developinent plan and allowing the development plan to move forward and have the entire site <br />lighting plan worlced on with administrative staff and return if needed. They would not be <br />allowed to install any light poles until the entire site lighting is addressed. Mr. Kerr said they <br />supported the planner's suggestion as did cominission members. <br />Mrs. Meredith questioned the proximity of the loading dock to the rear property line and how <br />deliveries would be made. Mr. Kerr said that the new building loading doclc would be further <br />away fi•om the residents then the existing buildings doclc and deliveries would only be made in <br />accordance to city codes. Mr. McClure said there are two truclc deliveries a day which will <br />3