05/09/2007 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

for filing; 2) the applicant complies with the development plan approval of the park-n-ride expansion; and 3) all conditions and modifications placed upon the development approval of March 28, 2007 are incorporated into the conditions of the lot consolidation approval. M. Mahoney seconded the motion. Roll call: Mahoney, Meredith, Malone, Rerko, Cotner, Lasko - yes; Bohlmann - no. Motion passed 6-1 2. Walters Advanced Dentistry; 4780 Claiue Rd: (WRD #4) Proposal consists of demolishing existing home and constructing new dental office. Note: PDC tabled 02/28/07 and BZA granted Use Variance 03/26/07. Variances are required. Ms. Wenger reported that the Board of Zoning Appeals approved the use variance and imposed conditions limiting the use variance to the dentist office only and placed restrictions on hours of operation. The Commission requested the applicants address amount of parking, tree preservation, landscape changes, landscape irrigation, easement details, wetland conditions, photometric plans, and lot consolidation. New plans addressed landscaping noted irrigation arid shows existing trees to remain and those to be removed. Photometric plan and lighting cut sheets were submitted, along with some wetland evaluations. Items remaining include lot consolidation, access easement, and documents justifying the number of parking spaces. Mr. Mathews reyiewed the five area variances required which included a front yard setback and side yard setback which the commission previously addressed and a variance for two wall signs. Mr. Collins advised that the applicants are required to consolidate the land into one parcel. The ditch along the western portion of the site requires a hydraulic analysis of the ditch as it is not clear if it will be re-routed or piped. The color drawing marked SD1 showing the detention pond having a 42" high decorative fence does not match that shown on sheet 3 of 7 of the plans. He questioned which was accurate or why the entire detention pond was not enclosed. Mr. O'Malley advised that the law department required a copy of the easement from Wellington Place pertaining to the driveway and recommended the commission make the easement a requirement of final approval. Mr. Sampat, the architect, and Mr. & Mrs. Walters were present to review the proposal. Mr. Sampat reviewed that the 50 foot setback was to ensure the building was placed in line with the existing buildings in the area. The two wall signs are more of an architectural detail than signs as they are carved stone, and not internally illuminated. The fencing surrounds the retention basin only. The parking to building distance can not be accomplished do to the size of the site therefore they will seek the variance. They are required 15 parking spaces and show 23 spaces using green parking and dental office requirements. Dental offices average 5.7 spaces per 1000 sq ft of gross floor area and the actual average parking demand is more like 4.11 per 1000 sq ft. The doctors through seminars were advised to have 2 parking spaces per dental chair plus parking for staff inembers. Mr. Rerko questioned visibility for patrons leaving the building or pulling out of the handicap parking. Mr. Sampat said he would shift the handicap space west. Mr. Lasko requested the landscape bed be expanded further if the parking space is moved. Mr. Sampat agreed to move the space and increase the bed. Mr. Rerko questioned elevation levels around the pond, the type of roofing materials used and why the basement was not handicap accessible. Mr. Sampat believed the elevation drop was at the most 1-foot, and architectural 3-dimensional 30 year shingles with white aluminum downspouts would be used. As the building is less than 3,000 square feet handicap - accessibility is not required. Mr. Rerko felt the building and sign designs worked well for the area. 3