04/26/2005 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

° send to the Board of Zoning Appeals. He suggested that as a rule of thumb the objective is to have a vaziance free plan when a new site is being addressed. Appiicants Presenta.tion: Mr. Ferguson, with Four Points Architects said the owners' intent was to remove the existing home, garage, and what looked to be a chicken coop and replace thern with a new 21,190 square foot building. It is his intent to not require any variances outside the sign package. They have ordered a tree survey but have yet to receive the results. They would like to preserve two sizable maple trees located along the property line near the proposed parking area as well as a large maple in the front of the site. There are existing trees along the east side of tlie site which would be addressed once the survey is completed. Ms. Wenger advised the applicant to add two additional landbank parking spaces to #he plans to eliminate the need for parking variance. She questioned if the applicant intended to provide landscape irrigation and change the width of the access drive to the maximum width of 24-feet to eliminate those variances. Mr. Ferguson stated he would insta.ll an irrigation system as required by code as well as change the width of the drive to 24-feet to address the radius issue. IVIs. Wenger questioned if thete would be site lighting or just wall mounts. Mr. Ferguson indicated that there would be wa11 fixtures with full cut-offs and they would like to have two additional pole lights for safety. Ms. Wenger requested a photometric plan as well as cut sheets of all light fixtures proposed for the site. Mr. Bohlmann questioned if the applicant intended to install the required brick pavers. Mr. Ferguson suggested brick pavers would be installed and shown on the new plans. Mr. Yager suggested moving the ground sign to eliminate the visibility variance. Mr. Bohlmann questioned if the utilities would be placed underground. Mr. Ferguson indicated that they would be undergrourid and they would place the underground water retention either under the parking area or under the landbank parking outside the flood plane. Mr. Spalding questioned what type of landscaping would be used along the east side of the site. Mr. Ferguson suggested that he was not sure what would be done until the tree survey was completed. Ms. Wenger advised the applicant to submit new plans as well as the tree survey prior to going before the Architectural Review Board. Mr. Bohlmann questioned if the rear loading dock would be enclosed or declined to buffer the residential properties from the semi trucks. Mr. Ferguson suggested that due to the rear site being 4-foot higher they could not use a declining loading dock. Mr. Bohlmann requested the applicant use masonry walls around the delivery area, put up a fence or increase the number of trees along the rear of the site to buffer the residents. Mr. Yager suggested tasing dirt from the site to place mounds along the rear area. Mr. Bohlmann requested the City Fopester review the site arnd make recommendations on how to buffer the residents keeping in mind the flood zone area. A brief discussion regarding federal agencies updating the flood plain maps took place. Residents Comments: Mr. Beegan is concerned about the manor in which the semi trucks would malce their deliveries and how the noise generated from the trucks would be addressed. He questioned who would enforce the regulations pertaining to hours of operations and deliveries. Mr. O'Ma11ey advised that the owner is obliged to be aware of Nortli Olmsted laws pertaining to hours of operations and deliveries to their site. Abutting neighbors would contact the Police department if deliveries are being made outside the parameters of the law. However, the commission has asked the applicant to look at further ways to help buffer abutting residents. 10