09/13/2006 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Rymarczyk reiterated that the plans marked pre-approved were copies of the approved original plans which shows what was to be planted but wasn't. Neither the plans marked received August 15, 2006 nor the August 25, 2006 plans accurately reflect the letter rnarked received August 15, 2006. Mr. Khouri said City Council requested Mr. Zergott and Mr. Schiely review the approved plans and make changes to ensure what was planted would survive and plants installed would be properly installed to create a more functional plan, therefore the changes were made through the direction of City Council. The changes include the addition of more than 200 trees and plantings to the site. The additional trees were added to provide additional screening and assist in the control of water issues along the rear of the site. Other changes were made to ensure trees were salt resistant and they have far exceeded the original plan which was approved. Mr. Khouri advised that they were hoping to complete buildings C& D and then do a comprehensive as- built set of plans showing everything including the modifications to sewers, building placements, and landscaping beds which could be changed. No matter what is submitted now there will be additional changes made so they would like to submit an as built at the end of the project. Ms. Wenger advised that the applicant should be submitting proposed changes to the City for review before making changes. She again requested a comprehensive plan be submitted incorporating the August 15, 20061etter. Mr. Khouri suggested he had built in 140 Cities and no other City had ever required he submit new drawings every tiine there is a change made. For the most part changes that were made are in response to the City Forester, inspectors or residents near the site. He feels that the city should just wait until everything is completed and an as built is submitted. Mr. Lasko suggested that although the changes that were made may have been bigger, better and more expensive but due to the magnitude of the changes made, they are not minor changes. Mr. Malone reviewed that he took the landscape plans marked received August 25, 2006 and the memo marked received August 15, 2006 and compared the two to the original and added to his plan the list of items from the letter that state to be added and what was missing from the approved plan. He advised that the changes made were major changes. The following is Mr. Malone's recommendations pertaining to the changes: 1. The entrance way listing Apple Serviceberry was substituted with Red Sunset Red Maple trees which he agrees with. 2. The addition of the boulders he agrees with the reason for substituting those. 3. The Fragrant Sumac which was substituted with Buffalo Juniper he did not see listed in anything submitted. He questioned the reason for the change and where it would be used. Mr. Muller said it would be used along the long boulder wall at the entrance which would work with the Spiraea above it. Mr. Malone believed that a problem with the entire front area was due to the actual placement of the plantings not being specified, as it was to be placed around the boulders. He agrees with the applicant that the Buffalo Junipers are a better use at this point. 4. He does not agree with the substations of the Swiss Stone Pine trees as Swiss Stone Pines are focal point plants and deduced they were specified for this location for that reason instead of the Austrian Pines. 5. The Shingle Oaks which were substituted with Aristocrat Pear is along the Brookpark Road area is an acceptable substitution. 6. He asked what was substituted along the west corner boulder area that showed 3 Shingle Oak and 3 Swiss Stone Pine trees on the original, approved plan and whether, or not, it was Serviceberry. Mr. Muller said the Serviceberry replaced the Shingle Oak along the wall. Mr. Malone would prefer the Swiss Stone Pines be kept. 4