My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09/14/1999 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
1999
>
1999 Planning Commission
>
09/14/1999 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:47:59 PM
Creation date
1/28/2019 3:41:09 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
1999
Board Name
Planning Commission
Document Name
Minutes
Date
9/14/1999
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
night use would be a minimum. 1V1r. Burk suggested the applicants needed more light for safety <br />purposes. 1V1r. Tallon indicated that the board agreed lights were needed for safety, but that it <br />could be done with softer lights. N1r. Grassa questioned if the board was happy with the scale <br />and size of the poles. Mr. Tallon questioned why a 15-foot pole light was needed, why not use <br />12-foot poles. Mr. Burk indicated that if a smaller pole were used there would have to be more <br />put in place to get the desired effect. They want to be easy on the residents but the higher the <br />pole the more effect you achieve and it is less costly. Nfi-. Tallon indicated that the board <br />wanted 12-foot poles and to just add a few more poles lights to the site. Mr. Burk indicated <br />that he needed guidance from the board. Mr. Koeth commented use 12-foot pole lights, the <br />plans show 12, 15-foot pole lights now. Mr. Tallon indicated that the parking area abutted the <br />residents and the proposed lights on the plans would not read zero at the lot line. Mr. Burk <br />suggested that shields would be placed on the back of the lights to buffer the residents. Mr. <br />Koeth sugaested that, the 15 foot pole lights should be allowed to remain at the entrance and <br />then shoebox type poles used in the parking lot area. Mr. Burk suggested having shoebox <br />lighting on the residential side of the parking lot would work. Mr. Brennan commented that if <br />the applicant lowered the size of the wattage to the recommended mounting heights they would <br />end up with 150-watt metal halide for an 8" to 15" pole not 250watts. If the applicants went to <br />sodium which is what he believes should be used, to blend with the street incandescent pole <br />lighting of the neighborhood, the wattage is 100watts. He apologized for the added expense <br />but indicated that the residents needed to be protected from the lights. Mr. Tallon suggested <br />the board is only reviewing what the applicant should do to make everyone happy. Mr. Brennan <br />suggested that the light fixtures themselves were a good choice they just need to be on a lower <br />pole. NOTE: At this time in the meeting Mr. Brennan indicated that he would be turning the <br />meeting back over to the Chairman of the board Mr. Tallon and reviewed for Mr. Tallon the lot <br />consolidation plat which was reviewed first. He indicated that an Architectural Review Board <br />member, Mark Yager was present to comment on the Horizon proposal. Mr. Burk suggested <br />that they would look into the lower poles and sodium lights. Mr. Yager indicated that the <br />applicants met with him to review different options. The Architectural Review Board was <br />concerned that the buildir?g was not as welcoming to the children as they had hoped. The <br />concern for the owner was that they wanted the building to be used for other activities such as <br />evening events. The owners have indicated that the inside of the building will be playful by <br />using colors and having a more childlike atmosphere. The Architectural Review Board <br />requested that the architect look into malcing the entranceways a little more playful by using <br />colors. The present proposal is not quite as childlike as we would like, but the changes that <br />were made the Arclutectural Review Board does find acceptable. He agreed with the Planning <br />Commission in regards to the lighting issue and indicated that the Architectural Review Board <br />did not have a chance to really review the lighting. Mr. Yager commented that he was present <br />at this evenings meeting to convey the Architectural Review Boards view and indicate that the <br />changes the architect made are acceptable to the Architectural Review Board. Mr. Hreha <br />questioned what other functions would take place in the facility other than daycare and how <br />long will they go into the night. Mr. Smith indicated that there would be a multipurpose room <br />and theater. The plans are to have a second shift daycare that would be open until 11:00p.m. <br />and close on weekrughts at midnight. The daycare opens at 6:00am and in the winter months it <br />is still dark. He agrees that they should lesson the impact on their neighbors. He indicated that <br />3
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.