02/26/2002 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

meeting, they have always held the line with every developer that it is zero at the lot line. He understands they made a dramatic reduction at that lot line but it's still not zero. He added at coordinate 165 and 0, on the last plans that were submitted, which is pretty close to the first residential property's side yard, it was .01 and it still is. He said it has always been zero and he asked why Halleen can't conform to that. Mr. Conway commented on the light readings by sayina we don't have equipment that reads lower than 0.25. You can't read any lower than that so anything lower than 0.25, as far as the building department is concerned, is zero. N1r. Koeth said he goes along with Mr. Hreha because he thought that by eliminating those corner lights or at least eliminating one of the poles, you would eliminate a lot of the problem of spillage. Mr. Hreha said if you look farther up Dewey it is zero at the lot line. If they can make it zero at the lot line there, he asked why they can't make it zero all the way to Lorain on Dewey. Mr. Hreha said where the landscaping mound ends is where the spillage begins. He said it is still .26 on the other side of Dewey Rd which is probably 15-20' from the lot line. Mr. Spalding said at the 12/11/01 meeting they indicated they wanted poles at 10' with 2' bases. He askecl why they are going to 15' with the 2' base. Mr. Farrell responded that by lowering the lights any further they are defeating the purpose. If you- are going to reduce the lights to 10' you will have to have additional lights put in along Lorain Road, and additional lights along Dewey in order to disperse the light over the product. NADA recommends Iight poles anywhere from 22-25'. He said he thought they were beyond tlie height of the poles after the January meeting. Mr. Koeth confirmed they settled on the pole heights. Mr. Asseff asked if pole D is a 10' or 15' pole. Mr. Koeth said it is a 15' pole. Mr. Asseff then said that B's and C's are at 10'. Mr. Spalding was concerned about D, the one that creates spillage on Dewey and across the street. He asked if they can be lowered. NIr. Farrell wanted clarification on which poles he was referring to. Mr. Koeth said it is the two by Dewey that they have been talking about. He said going back to the lighting expert and the architect, if somehow they can eliminate those poles, or one of those poles, especially the one closer to the mound and direct that corner pole so you don't have that much spillage, that is what they are looking at. Mr. Farrell said if they do what the board is suggesting and move the light poles down in a westerly direction and even center them and redirect the light in a more northerly direction, Mr. Parsons has indicated they will get more spillage because of the direction the lights are facing; because they are not facing inward toward the light any longer they are facing along the lot line. Mr. Koeth informed Mr. Farrell to go back to the drawing board and ask Mr. Parsons what he can do about it. If they have to reduce those two D poles down to 10' and keep it on the property, that is what they would like to see. That could solve the problem; if you reduce the light as you tallced about. If you can keep the two poles there but reduce them to 10' because again, on that corner, you would not be showing cars and that would be a good consideration for the spillage. Mr. Farrell said they indicated they would need to show cars all along this lot. Mr. Spalding and Mrs. O'Rourke both said, not on Dewey. They cannot display cars there. Mr. Koeth said if they had permitted cars there they would have extended the mound all the way to Lorain. They talked about the fact that the cars are up front and not on the corner. Mr. Koeth suggested that Mr. Farrell look at the minutes from the last meeting. Mr. Farrell said he was not provided a copy. Mr. Farrell brought up the mound being extended and the traffic issues. Mr. Koeth said they will discuss the lights and try to do something about that. That is their recommendation. He then asked about the fencing. Mr. Koeth said the Architectural Review Board made recommendations about extending the fence almost all the way to the back side, the north side. Mr. Koeth asked if there was any problem with that. Mr. Farrell said the problem is they had discussed it with the Architectural Review Board and he was under the impression there is no fence requirement. He said when you have a fence so close to the building, it will make it very difficult for anyone to get back there to clean it out. When he saw the rough draft of the minutes from that meeting, he did note that in there. He planned on giving Mr. Zergott a call to see if that is the case. If that is going to be a requirement, his client will certainly comply, but he believes the discussion was that it is such a closed quarter area, it doesn't make good sense because of maintenance. Mr. Hreha asked how much space is back there. Mr. Kula, the property owner, said approximately 34 maximum. He added he disagrees with the way the minutes were presented. Mr. Koeth said that the Architectural Review Board has recommended that 3