09/21/2005 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The setback requirement is one issue that was raised by the Metroparks. The applicant is working with the Metroparks to address this. Mr. Rymaxczyk said we do not have a complete list of what variances may be required. The building does comply with setback requirements. , Mr. Crook indicated that he liked the front of the property, however, is a bit disappointed with the back of the property because it lacks features such as ponds, walking trails and benches for the residents. He will await the comments from the landscape architect who is not present. Presently, it shows a detention pond, service circle and a parking carport. Mr. Hendershott advised the Board that it is their assignment to construct the building. Other site related items are Catholic Charities' responsibility who are involved with the management operation. Ms. Nader felt it should be submitted as part of these plans. Mr. Crook asked if the retention pond could be moved behind the parking structure. Mr. Newberry said the basin cannot be moved because of the drainage and they may want to tap into the 16" pipe that goes across the front of the pavilion across the St. Clarence property. This is to allow them to get back into the creek without encroaching on the Metropark property. He expects the basin to change in configuration. What is shown on the plan is just preliminary for scale purposes. The applicant is looking into the possibility of a wet pond that would be more decorative, but being the way the slope is may cause interference. Mr. Newberry said he would review the Board's suggestions to the owner. Mr. Hendershott submitted a final landscape plan. Mr. Ulewicz asked if mounding and or half moons or rocks could be added to the front. Mr. Hendershott informed the Board that they are dropping 8' from the street down to the building and having mounds on the top would not make a lot of sense, however, they have thought about putting some feature planting near the front entrance way. After visiting the site today, Mr. Ulewicz indicated he was unsure what trees would be saved as none were marked. Mr. Newberry said they are still in the review process. Mr. Crook said he appreciates that evergreens and deciduous shrubs were put in the front. Mr. Crook will recommend that Mr. Malone, the Board's landscape architect, review the landscape plan and provide comments prior to returning to Planning Commission. In general, Mr. Crook said a good effort was provided, however, he asked if the trees in the back of the building could be pushed back a bit. He further asked if the trees, circular drive and landscaping in the back could be incorporated into a master plan to add more personal features to enhance the area. Mr. Ulewicz asked if the trees will shade the resident's aparhnents. Mr. Newberry said the lighting planned for the parking lot will be focused away from the building. Wall mount lighting will be used for security. Initially, a lighting plan was submitted showing light poles outside of the service drive. Mr. Crook questioned the position of some of the light poles and asked if they would use decorative lantern type of fixtures that offer a more residential and personal feeling. He will recommend to Planning Commission that cut sheets for a new non-shoebox type fixture be implemented. As far as the number of units per acre, Mr. Newberry indicated that they are well below what code requires. The architect was not present at the meeting so additional site information was not available. Mr. Rymarczyk informed the applicant that a list of materials and colors will need to be submitted. Mr. Crook appreciated receiving the color rendering and told the applicant that the building offers a residential feel even though it is a three story building. He likes the way it is broken up with roof lines. Mr. Ulewicz asked why the color green was chosen for the main door while the 2