03/20/1996 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

..? It was noted that there was a 50 foot strip of land that runs from Columbia Road all the way down the rear property lines of the homes behind this building and also there was an existing 5 foot fence on Mr. Steffen's property and a 4 foot chain link fences further down. Mr. Mongello is having a survey done at this time and agreed to have it show the existing trees. Mr. Coyne questioned where they could pile snow if the mound were installed in the landbanked spaces. He again mentioned the cost of removing a mound and landscaping and believed that, putting a mound on space that is landbanked for future use, is a major imposition on the property owner and. ignored the intent of the code. The members discussed if the mounding was necessary. It was suggested that a fence with trees immediately in front, of it and then, lower growing, dense shrubs in front of the trees might suffice on the south side. Ms. Kemp - Kopco questioned putting a fence neart to fences owned by the adjacent residents. Then there would be a 5 foot fence in Mr: Steffen's back yard, about a foot of dirt, and then a 6 foot fence. On the west side, Mr. Steffen preferred a 5 foot mound with a 6 foot fence on top in the area where it will not kill the trees and noted that the land slopes down and then their property slopes back up to the building. It was noted that the 6 foot pine trees are on 12 foot centers, but they are staggered in two rows. Mr. Zergott suggested using 6 to 8 foot Austrian Pine planted on a 10 foot centers and staggered. On the south line he suggested a mou.nd with lower plantings. Regarding removing the parking spaces close to the new entrance, Mr. Zergott would like to see the tree survey later to decide what could be done there. Mr. Gallagher suggested eliminating the mound altogether and installing a board on board fence with trees and shrubs along all the property lines which would shield lights, provide security, and save the trees. Mr. Steffen agreed, if the trees were tall enough. It was clarified that these trees would be on Seaman's property, not Mr. Steffen's. Mr. Mongello offered to raise the grade a foot to make the fence higher. Mr. Zergott would like to break up the pines with some maples or deciduous trees, but cautioned that raising the grade, even 3 inches will kill a tree. If Seaman's builds a fence right next to Mr. Steffen's fence, it would be impossible to maintain the area in- between: Removing the fence would be up to Mr. Steffen. It was agreed that the 6 foot fence with a nice mix of trees be installed on the south line, returning 20 feet on the east, then going along the west, and the lower south line. It was suggested that there be two or three rows of trees. Mr. Zergott will review the plan when it is presented. The dwnpster location was satisfactory and the developer agreed to put some shrubs or arborvitae around it. The enclosure was shown as board on board, but the board preferred a masonry structure, with a gate, to match the building. The developers agreed. The main part of the building will be spilt face block to match the existing building which has two colors, so it will be Earthstone or Korktan as an altemate, with a Way White split face accent band; the Dryvit, either 1072 or 1073 as. an alternate, will be on the portico with an accent panel of 0065; the metal standing seam roof will be forest green; and a dark bronze aluminum store front system will match the existing. Mr. Yager would like the mansard raised slightly on the west side entrance for emphasis. Ms. Kemp-Kopco clarified that there is no feature band on the existing building because they are just covering the existing. Mr. Liggett would prefer masonry block on the columns to keep them from being damaged and because Dryvit can be a maintenance problem. It was suggested that the columns could be block up to the windows, but this is up to the architect. Ms: ,Kemp-Kopco will look into raising the mansard on the northwest corner. She was advised to take the revised plan to the planning commission who would review it. There will be lights under the soffit on the front of the building. The parking lot pole lights with directional lumiuaries will be metal halide. There are some pole lights on the rear which are shielded. The signage will be addressed by the tenant. No roof top units will be visible because they will be set in the middle of the building. Mr. Menke mentioned that the fence might not be able to go on the opposite side ofthe trees. This can be field adjusted. Mr..Menke would be willing to maintain the part of the fence that he can see. T. Gallagher moved to accept the Seaman's Furniture proposal with the following recommendations: that there be a 6 foot board on board fence 3