10/11/2023 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

available. Mr. Olivos questioned Mr. Copley about the detention basin, asking about fencing water retention, etc. Mr. Copley clarified that a detention basin only detains water temporarily during rain events. The intention is not to have a permanent water hazard. He stated there was no current plan for fencing, and that the back yard already had a fence. and a new fence will be added to comply with buffering requirements. Mr. Peeples expressed concern about the new lighting and how it would affect a resident on Dewey, which had not had lighting before. He questioned the reflection of LED light and suggested measures to prevent it from impacting the resident. Mr. Copley acknowledged the concern and mentioned that the plan was revised to remove a light pole near that area, and explained it was a deliberate concession to avoid potential issues for the residents. Mr. David expressed enthusiasm about the expansion but raised concern about the tree line behind the property, and suggested to preserve the mature trees. He also expressed concern regarding the location of the curb cut. and expressed a preference to be closer to Lorain Road. He asked for some clarification regarding the traffic flow to the service center. Mr. David expressed concern about noise and lighting issues on the lot on Dewey. He asked about noise and lighting mitigation on the property line and the appearance of the privacy fence. Mr. Copley mentioned in his response the plan for a required landscape buffer and a six-foot nei,,hbor-friendly privacy fence. Mr. David expressed concern about the adequacy for the proximity. Mr. Leon asked Mr. O'Malley if the Dewey curb cut could be removed from the current plan and discussed separately. Mr. O'Malley replied that the applicant can consider the boards comments and mentioned the possibility of negotiation and trade-offs in proposed elements. There was more discussion regarding the location of the Dewey curb cut in proximity to the residence. however, Mr. O'Malley deferred to the engineers regarding the minimum requirements of the code. Jim Pacsuta, residing at 5244 Dewey Road. expressed concerns. He mentioned his family's ownership of the property since 1938 and observed changes in the neighborhood. Living between two car dealerships. he highlighted increased noise, including hors and truck activity. impacting the once quiet street. He raised concerns about the proposed development, emphasizing issues with lighting overspill on residential properties. safety concerns related to the curb cut on Dewey. and a potential loss of green space. He opposed the curb cut and the overall design plan. citing safety hazards. traffic issues, and the impact on residents' quality of life. Mr. Bill Jordan. residing at 5262 Dewey Road. supported Mr. Pacsuta's concerns. As the number one resident on the street, he offered a historical perspective on the properties. Mr. Jordan discussed the employees' route across lot number 64 between buildings and emphasized the lack of plans for the detailing building and the properties from Dewey Road to Porter Road. He mentioned the curb cut on Dewey Road existing for at least 75 years and its draw for car carriers. Mr. Jordan echoed concerns about lighting. Ms. Catherine LaRosa, residing at 5251 East Park Drive. expressed concerns about green space. She aligned with previous speakers' sentiments, opposing any cut -through on Dewey due to safety concerns. She recounted the history of promised green space. dating back to 1991 and 2005, understanding it would remain undeveloped. She shared the backstory of Mrs. Duffy losing the property she was supposed to receive and emphasized the issues with lights and honking horns. She again referenced the year 1991 when the house on East Park was removed with the commitment not to develop the resulting green space.