Laserfiche WebLink
During the presentation for Phase III, the landscape plan was discussed, highlighting the use of <br />native or adaptive native species to ensure environmental compatibility. Evergreen screening was <br />added on the east and west perimeters for privacy and zoning compliance. The presentation also <br />covered fencing plans and site furnishings, emphasizing consistency in style and functionality. <br />Additionally, the playground design was briefly touched upon, with ongoing discussions to <br />finalize its layout. The electrical engineer then discussed sight lighting, emphasizing the use of <br />LED technology and adherence to LEED standards for light pollution reduction. The <br />photometric plan was presented to show the distribution of lighting and ensure minimal light <br />trespass onto adjacent properties. Finally, nighttime renderings were provided to illustrate the <br />planned lighting effects on the site. <br />Concerns were raised about changes to the original plan presented to voters. particularly <br />regarding the removal of a walking trail and the proposed replacement of a board -on -board fence <br />with bushes. The absence of a fence was perceived as a safety issue, as it could allow <br />unrestricted access to the property and potentially compromise security. Concerns were also <br />expressed about the maintenance of the bushes and their effectiveness in providing privacy <br />compared to a fence. A request was made for clarification regarding the proposed evergreen <br />fencing and whether it would d be installed in lieu of a board -n -board fence particularly for <br />homes bordering the property. Additionally, questions were raised about the access to utilitv <br />infrastructure located in the backyards of adjacent properties and how the proposed fencing' <br />would accommodate this. Additional concerns were expressed about the lack of clarity and <br />transparency regarding the project, particularly regarding the distance between Birch Circle <br />property lines and the driveway, as well as discrepancies between displayed measurements and <br />city ordinances. The resident highlighted frustrations with obtaining accurate information and <br />cited ordinances regarding public facility overlay districts and setback requirements. Concerns <br />were raised about variances being requested and the decision to replace the proposed fence with <br />greenery, potentially compromising safety for both children and neighboring residents. There <br />was additional frustration expressed about the lack of clarity regarding plans behind the abutting <br />properties. Concerns were raised about parking proximity. Inquiries were made about the impact <br />of the new lights around the school. <br />There was discussion about the variance requests, particularly regarding fencing and setback. <br />The previous plan included fence around certain areas, but it didn"t receive approval. Now, the <br />proposal includes a combination of evergreen trees and bushes instead of the fence, but only <br />where there isn't an existing fence. The variances being sought were clarified to include building <br />height, lighting height, and driveway setback. Some board members expressed concern about the <br />impact on neighbors and suggested revisiting the idea of providing a combination of fence and <br />greenery or better screening. They questioned if additional funding could be allocated for a <br />suitable fence, similar to the one around the high school. <br />Mr. David motioned to recommend approval to City Council phase II of 26012-PO10-1, PK — <br />School. Lorain Road, with the conditions that the traffic study is approved by the city engineer <br />and the variances are approved: seconded by Mr. Peeples. <br />Motion Passed: 6-0 <br />