Laserfiche WebLink
maintains was marginal at best. He pointed out that Dr. Hauser is a paid <br />consultant who works out of his home. He will present this information to the <br />Commission within the next week. He also objects to the new name stating that <br />it is an insult to the people who are in direct proximity of the complex. Mr. <br />Thomas stated that the response from the Army Corp. of Engineers implies that <br />the only jurisdiction that the Federal Government would have would be if they <br />were dredging or if there was water being discharged onto the propertyo He <br />understood that there was a limitation of development on wetlands. Mr. <br />Deichmann explained that a consultant can make a determinations as to whether <br />or not wetlands exist on the site under the three conditions that must be met <br />to be classified as a wetland, if there is a wetland certain other criteria <br />must be met in order for the Corps of Engineers to have jurisdiction. He has <br />not seen Dr. Hauser's report, and it is possible that there could be wetlands <br />and the Corp. of Engineers would decline jurisdiction. Mr. Bollinger presented <br />a copy of the study to Mr. Deichmann. Mr. Nichola maintains that Dr. Hauser <br />was in the field as early as October 15th, even though the initial discussion <br />was held later in October. Mr. Bollinger stated that this was not possible <br />since he received a letter from the Corp. forewarning him that this property <br />did have to be e.xamined from the standpoint of a wetland after the October <br />23rd meeting when this issue was discussed. Mr. Deichman advised Councilman <br />McKay that the water retention plans had not been received, but all City <br />requirements would have to be met. Mrs. Lynn, a resident, would like fencing <br />on the western edge of the development, and pointed aut that even though these <br />are backyards, this land is'used by the residents. Mr. Bollinger advised the <br />Coirnnission that they had met with residents as recomnended to clarify the <br />proposal and then were later accused of making deals with some individuals. It <br />was clarified that no height variance was required for these buildings. Ms. <br />Forrey, a resident, complained because she had purchased the property in <br />October and was told that nothing was being proposed for that area; she was <br />told that it was zoned for this useo She is concerned about drainage caused <br />by the mounding on this property, pointing out that her property was swampy in <br />the back at present. She would like a brick wall, but a wood fence with trees <br />behind it would suffice. Mr. Bollinger pointed out the 60 to 80 foot wide area <br />behind her house which is zoned single family and will be left natural; a <br />fence will be installed along the property lines, and if there would be a <br />drainage problem, yard drains will be installed. M[r. Gorris explained how this <br />proposal would proceed through the various Boards for final approval. Mr. <br />Bollinger advised that construction will start this year if they get their <br />approvals. Mr. Toyama, a resident adjacent to the Clague Road drive, is <br />concerned about buffering and would prefer a board on board fence with <br />landscaping instead of the fence shown on the plan with mounding and <br />landscaping. He also has a drainage problem on his property. Mr. Bollinger <br />advised the neighbors that there was a storm sewer running down along their <br />rear property line which they could tap into. He explained that mounding in <br />varying heights from 3 to 4 feet with evergreens on top is planned along the <br />access drives to provide screening year round; the fence shown for the rear of <br />the property was architecturally compatible with the buildings. He is <br />concerned that a high, solid fence would give the look of a fortress. <br />Councilman Nasher asked if they change these building from apartment to <br />condominiun units. He surveyed the neighbors who indicated that they would <br />prefer condominiums. Mr. Kaczmar stated that these units are sized for rental <br />units and are in an area zoned for rental units, to change to a condominiums <br />would require larger imits. Mr. Bollinger has discussed this with the owners <br />but the plans have not been changed. Mr. Bowen stated that at some point in <br />time they would probably be converted to condominiums, since many apartments <br />are designed that way. Mr.. Troibner, who lives directly across from the <br />4