12/12/1989 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 1989 PAGE Z . ,?•• t for the project, basically gave the same recommendations. Mso Wholey, representing Hettig Company, stated that it is their ilntention to trans- plant or save as many of the existing trees as is possible: Mr. Thomas advised that Mr. Zergott, of the Architectural Review Board, had signed the landscaping plan this evening because he did not want to hold up ' the proposal, however, he has requested that the Commission approve this with the condition that all of the Architectural Board's recommendations be stipulated. Mr. Stogsdill, architect for the proposal9 advised that they have changed the configuration of the buildings on the property as a result of the Architectural Review Board's suggestions. The buildings and garages have been shifted (mostly on the westernmost portion of the property) to give more space between buildings. He further explained that they did take note of previous comments regarding the ratio of one bedroom units to two bedroom units and have increased the two bedroom units to 152 or 59% of the total units which will remain at 260. They have also added more brick and changed the ends of the building so that they are stepped back and not just solid brick walls. As a result of the increase in two bedroom units, they have also increased the garage and parking spaces in order to conform to code. This has not yet been reviewed by the Building DeparL-ment. Mr. Evans, the landscape consultant from URS, .explained that they will supplement the buffer area where it is thin; they will preserve as many of the mature trees as possible; and they did present a landscape plan which includes a landscape concept for the clubhouse, for a typical long unit and a typical short unit.for review by Mrm Zergott. Mr. Thomas pointed out that Mr. Zergott was not totally satisfied with these plans. Ms Wholey stated that the actual ? numbers.of these plants will be determined later when the landscape bids are requested. Mr. Stogsdill presented the signage plans for the steeple, a ground sign, and various street and traffic signs. It was elarified that the color of the steeple is now shown as.a navy blue and was origi- nally shown as green.. Ms. Wholey stated that they'could go back to the green, but when the logo was determined they changed to blue for the steeple and the wrought iron f2nce. The members had no problem with the blue. The Police Department report stated that sidewalks should be in- s.talled with the intent of installing sidewalks all the.way to Lorain Road. Mr. Gorris agrees that tliere should be sidewalks,. but questioned such installation at the areas of the interchanges. The Commission will study this later, but at this point only the portion adjacent to the property being discussed can be addressed. It was clarified that there are sidewalks on Butternut Ridge, this.recommendation would only apply ' to the property adjacent to Great Northern. Mr. Schulz, a resident of Butternut Ridge, questioned the height of the steeples, the issue of the compactors, and further asked if there had been any discussion o.f radon . pointing out that there will be new E;P,A, regulations for radon testing. Mr. Thomas responded that the Commission has no expertise in the area of radon and. this issue should be handled .by the appropriate bodies. ris. Wholey responded that they they do conduct environmental studies on all properties and follow all E.P.A. regulations in reference to building materials. She further advised that the steeples were shown.at 45 feet high; how.ever, if a variance for these is not granted, they could be reduced to 35 feet which would conform to the court order and to the city ordinance, They have eliminated the compactors and will hava several ? dumpster enclosures throughout the property. In reference to.the traffic study, Mr. Knight is questioning if the Butternut Ridge studies and the Great Northern Boulevard studies were taken at the same time since there