Laserfiche WebLink
?r... <br />indicated there are shrubs along the sides of the building and continue around the back. This is a <br />long narrow lot and the driveway is shared with Marty's living room. Mr. Zergott inquired as to <br />the north corner of the lot having landscaping instead of just a pavement. Mr. Liggett reminded <br />Mr. Kuper residents live right behind your office building. Mr. Kuper indicated there are about <br />nine to twelve small trees which we would like to remove. Mr. Zergott asked if there would be <br />access to the dumpster. It doesn't look like BFI will be able to get in there without tearing up the <br />blacktop. Mr. Yager asked if the dumpster was a shared dumpster or did it solely belong to the <br />accountants office building. Mr. Kuper indicated it was solely their dumpster. It would be nice to <br />keep the two big trees that are at the back of the lot. Mr. Liggett asked if there would be any <br />landscaping around the dumpster area. Mr. Zergott asked if there would be a fence around the <br />dumpster area. Mr. Kuper suggested by code a fence has to be put around the dumpster. Some <br />shrubs could be placed in the place of the evergreens that will be removed, but there is at least 50' <br />feet of buffer between the residents and the office building. Mr. Rymarczyk asked about the <br />water retention that had not been addressed and some of the area Mr. Kuper is talking about <br />could be affected by a water retention plan. Mr. Liggett asked if a water retention plan had been <br />submitted to the engineering department. Mr. Kuper indicated the drainage is shared with the <br />neighboring property. There is a drainage ditch which is in a covert and a drain that goes between <br />both of the lots, we are only adding a thousand square foot of building. Mr. Liggett suggested <br />you may have to restrict some that you didn't have to before. Mr. Kuper asked if a water <br />retention plan could be placed underground. Mr. Rymarczyk suggested that would be up to the <br />engineering department. Mr. Kuper indicated that if the project is going to be expensive then it <br />will not be done. A new roof is needed and the thought is to replace the roof when the addition is <br />being added to keep the coast down. The firm has tried to address one thing at a time, but if the <br />coast get to high this project will be dropped, and the dentist will move out. The front of the <br />building has been put on hold because of the new sign ordinance and what way it will go. Mr. <br />Zergott suggested having Mr. Mongello submit a landscape plan. Mr. Rymarczyk and Mr. Yager <br />discussed who is and is not responsible for making sure landscaping plans are submitted. Mr. <br />Rymarczyk indicated it is up to the applicant to make sure they submit everything the board has <br />asked for, and in this case Mr. Kuper is the applicant. Mr. Zergott suggested using landscaping in <br />the dead space area instead of black top. The clerk was instructed to ask the City forester to look <br />at the site to find out what condition the existing trees are in. Mr. Kuper suggested they were <br />only made aware of the retention last week and is not sure were it will have to go, so he would <br />like to address the water retention first, and then address the landscaping at that time. Mr. Kuper <br />asked could the landscaping plan be submitted at that time. Mr. Zergott suggested that would be <br />fine and then he would make a special trip in to look it over. No further questions were <br />addressed. <br />M. Yager motioned to except the proposal as submitted with the following comments. That an <br />actual landscaping plan that deals with the retention, and the landscaping issues. There is to be <br />landscaping around the rear entrance, and the north side of the parking. That you consider <br />renovating the front facade. The motion was seconded by C. Allan, and unanimously approved. <br />Motion Carried.