Laserfiche WebLink
+1 f <br />buffer. Mr. Tallon agr.eed he would like to see that increased to ten feet and 1V1r. Coury stated he <br />would modify the drawing accordingly as they are returning to the architectural review board on <br />Thursday. Mr. Conway clarified the proposal would be heard before the board of zoning appeals <br />on Thursday as a referral from the planning commission would be needed in order for this project <br />to be heard before the architectural review board. Mr. Tallon questioned if the lots have been <br />consolidated. City Engineer Deichmann stated tfiat he did not recall ever seeing a plat, but <br />confirmed the lots would have to be consolidated prior to development. According to Mr. Coury, <br />the variance requests are the same as approved in 1995. In response to a question from Mr. <br />Tallon concerning the number of beds, Mr. Coury clarified they have decreased the number of <br />beds to 50 with the potential of later on adding another 25, and the original proposal was for 75 <br />beds. Mr. Conway noted upon review of the latest plan (received August 26, 1998) he counted <br />85 beds. Mr. Coury agreed there were 85 beds originally, but a workable number is 65 beds. Mr. <br />Kazmar confirmed the floor plan would be modified accordingly. Mr. Tallon questioned how the <br />reduction in number of beds would affect the footprint of the building. Mr. Coury advised that <br />would not effect the overall size of the building as the additional space would be utilized for other <br />services. It was confirmed the footprint of the building would remain the same, however the <br />number of bed sizes would be reduced. Mr. Tallon questioned if there were any more changes the <br />commission should know about. Mr. Coury confirmed the only anticipated change would be the <br />reduction of the number of beds and the building size would remain as originally proposed. Mr. <br />Tallon noted, according to the building commissioner the building size is slightly larger than <br />originally proposed. Mr. Coury maintained the building design has not changed from what was <br />approved in 1995. Mr. Conway clarified the confusion might be in comparing the concept <br />drawing (previously submitted to planning in 1995) and the final drawing reflecting any and all <br />recommended changes. He noted although this submission may differ from the concept drawing, <br />the final drawing (submitted in 1995) may be identical to the August 26, 1998 drawing. Mr. <br />Conway identified the changes, which he believed was very minor. Mr. Kazmar then confirmed <br />there were slight increases on the corners of the building, but that was something that was <br />necessary to keep the project within code due to the number of beds. Mr. Spalding questioned if <br />there would be any protective fencing around the lake. Mr. Coury stated that is something they <br />are attempting to work out with the Metro Park board as he would prefer to enclose the lake. <br />Mr. Spalding questioned what type of patients would utilize this facility. Mr. Coury noted this is <br />not an Alzheimer's facility, so they do not anticipate that type of patient. Mr. Tallon noted there <br />is no fencing or aeration shown around the lake area. Mr. Deichmann noted normally the city <br />would favor underground retention, but Metro Parks prefers above ground retention. He was <br />uncertain if Metro Parks would have any restrictions on fencing. Mr. Deichmann stated if Metro <br />Parks ultimately did not approve of taking this retention on their property, an on site underground <br />retention system would be required as an alternative. Mr. Tallon noted an aeration system would <br />be needed, if Metro Parks approves of the submission as the mosquito's will be horrendous. Mr. <br />Coury advised it would be done right, provided the Metro Parks approves of the submission. Mr. <br />Brennan questioned if Mr. Coury has ever discussed the project with the Metro Parks Board. Mr. <br />Coury advised there was a verbal eommitment three years ago, and they are in the process of <br />negotiating the details with the Metro Parks Board. Mr. Kish, an abutting property owner, was <br />concerned about the retention system, and noted there is an underground retention basin on St. <br />Clearance's property which holds the water for a certain amount of time then drains to the ditch. <br />He wondered if the city has any plans for the storm drainage as presently there is too much run off <br />and the ditch is rarely maintained. Mr. Deichmann confirmed the plans show re-digging the ditch <br />along the entire Castle Pines property so that part will be addressed. In response to a question <br />from Mr. Tallon, Mr. Coury confirmed the lake will eventually drain into the ditch. Service <br />Director Bohlmann advised if the above ground retention is approved, the city is going to do <br />some drainage work in the back area to relieve the residents of the standing water. One of the <br />problems is Metro Parks likes the wetlands so they have no intentions of doing anything. He <br />confirmed the city would like to take care of that problem. Mr. Bohlmann further advised the <br />culvert that goes across Barton Road will be replaced this year, on a 50/50 proposition with the <br />county. He noted the city prefers an above ground retention, in this situation, so that the city has <br />?