Laserfiche WebLink
cannot absolutely promise this. In response to Mr. Skoulis' questions, he <br />stated that: they do have an in-house management company; that he does not <br />lmow the actual rental figures, however, they usually receive top rents in the <br />markets where they are located. Mr. Furman advised that the buildings conform <br />to the zoning codes in that less than 700 of the second floor can be on a <br />third level as long as it is incorporated into the same building. Building <br />Commissioner Conway agreed these buildings did conform to the zoning <br />definition of a 1/2 story, explaining that one of the other proposal <br />incorporated this definition in the lofts. All tmits are above grade. Chairman <br />Gorris read a letter from City Engineer Deichmann which stated that "I am <br />absolutely opposed to any above-ground detention that is a deviation from the <br />conditions imposed with the previous project approved at this location. The <br />Steeple Walk pond was located at the entrance such that the City was assured <br />that maintenance was a high priority, the design was for a 100-year storm and <br />the pond was to be aerated by a method approved by the City Engineer." Mr. <br />Trevillian stated that they would have no problem going back to the Steeple <br />Walk detention/retention solution, however they believed that the open <br />retention along the rear property would have been a combination swale/berm, <br />and with heavy landscaping would have buffered their complex from the proposed <br />buildings behind them. They contend that the ponds in the front of the <br />complex were so small that that they were basically just puddles. They <br />ma.intain that their proposed retention would not be noticeable and it would be <br />be maintained since that would be in the best interest of the developer. tMr. <br />uorris statea tnaL normal-u <br />retention but had agreed to t <br />Furman stated that they did ] <br />to be fenced in, it became a <br />underground retention was no <br />their opinion, tmnecessarye Ic <br />a project and have it work <br />retention would take away frc <br />the previous minutes there w <br />property to the adjacent proF <br />the lot at Butternut Ridge <br />'court order. Building Commi, <br />used for recreation. Mr. Sk <br />on that lot since it sloped <br />that area would be used. In <br />that the plans had not be( <br />Assistant City Engineer McDe1 <br />by O.D.O.T. and would be us( <br />they would be required to } <br />conform to a11 regulations. <br />plans have been submitted to <br />this is never done Lmtil af <br />asked how the trash gets to <br />developers explained that thE <br />it will be paxtially below g <br />foot brick wall which will be <br />install a screen fence. Mr. <br />would impair the truck's load <br />this curvature was hard to sh <br />it before and it worked. In <br />that no security gates or sec <br />alarm systems with the tmits <br />r tne uity aia noL approve any aaove grouna <br />ze lake if it were done properly and safely. Mr. <br />iave a lake at another complex, but since it had <br />negative to the site. Mr. Trevillian stated that <br />out of the question but was expensive and, in <br />ince there is anly so much money to be spent on a <br />spending thousands of dollars on underground <br />m other areaso Mr. Skoulis pointed out that in <br />is some discussion of having an access from this <br />Dsed complex. Mr. Gorris questioned if the use of <br />and Great Northern Boulevard complied with the <br />?sioner Conway advised that this area was to be <br />Du1.is questioned if the grade were to be built up <br />down, and further questioned if the culvert in <br />-eference to the grade, Mr. Trevillian responded <br />n developed to that level of detail as yet. <br />mott advised tha,t the culvert had been installed <br />d for their outlet. Mr. Trevillian stated that <br />ick up all the storm drainage on the site and <br />Mr. Skoulis also asked if the detailed building <br />the Building Departmentm Mr. Conway advised that <br />ter Plann;ng Commission approval. Mr. Orlowski <br />the compactor and how it will be screened. The <br />residents take their trash to the compactor and <br />:ade and the remainder is screened by a 3 to 3 2 <br />landscapedm If the opening is visible, they will <br />)rlowski questioned if the curvature of the drive <br />ing and imloading. Mr. Trevillian responded that <br />:)w on plans drawn to this scale, but he had used <br />response to Mr. Skoulis' questions, he advised <br />irity gua.rds are planned, however they might have <br />if there is a demand for them; that sidewalks <br />4