05/25/1999 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.. , . > eview Board stick to the Architectural Review Board issues and let the Planning Commission do R buirldinghaya cr. the Planning. He suggested the brick was requested to hea to te £ront site. indicated that additional brick as well as dormers were a B bri rennan indicated the Architectural Review Board's main concerr Suwas hahda ac?onclurred wi h Mt' suggested it was to make the building look less residential. Y Brennan. Mr. Brennan asked to have the lighting reviewed. Mbus? nay and t e light ng inhthe would be parking lot ligh-ting, which would be surrounded by th g back would be wall units. He brought a photometric for the b n homes n he backdof the rtlot the light would be shining towards a wooded area, as there were H the board e indicated that he was aware that things could change. Mr. K?Oe th onerty linethlVlr Suhayda needed to make sure that th ?hat at would be zero atsthe property lines. Mr. Brennan asked what indicated the plans showed pole mounte tYPe of lights would be used. Mr. Suhayda indicated the fixtur r the back wat ?geeWOUldlbe in the front parkina lot and metal halide in the back of the uildnab, fixt 100-watts and mounted on the building. 1VIr. Koeth asked iouldebe auruarter ofea sph re type building would be top c i eS coved. Suhayda B ennan asked i the board could see a cut sheet of the light, the whole front of ica the liahts. Mr. Suhayda showed a cut sheet of the lights to th board beaadCarr?a et type li ht lilg?t would be used on the back of the building, and the front w liahts Koeth asked were the front pole lights would be located. Mr. Suh he a rkin?tlotthlvl?Conway would be in the front parking bm? a fi?ture cl u lt of?he lig 1 ghts1thMrt Suhayda indicated he would the asked if Mr. Suhayda could s submlit the fixture cuts to the building department. Mr. Brennan sededthrougho t the ldifferent building departments concerns regarding the proposal were address ?aested the issue that committees. . N1r. Conway indicated once t 11 be shared by both prop rt esu There needs to be an should be brought up is the driveway that w assurance that there will always be access to the site. indicbated akentcareeof.emMent had been asked for. N1r. Suhayda commented that an Dubelko indicated that the easement should be made ??Co n ?dir io to f the?.apCo wayhaskedr f Ithe cross easement for access, parking if necessary and p " es" and ajreement should be received prior to the permit being S laed shoDdbdraft anated easement and indicated that before the permit is issued, the develop ?'Yer submit it to the City so they can review it, and get it recorde?d S M? rmungleda wo h the tn?ursing there would also be easements for the storm retention a homes property. Mr. Dubelko indicated the storm easeme for accessl if theyaare us ng planning commission process. With respect to the cross easements both properties to access the facility, or the dumpster on th tg uproperty res for them tlo meetrcode, then that is a Planrung issue. What ever the plammng commsson reQ if they have to do it with the existing property of the nursing ould be no need to share need to be in place and recorded. Mr. Conway sugDested that there the parking and believed the dumpster would be on the newTl Wou d be hareda ?? aConway there would be no need to share the parking but the dumpste that indicated that the two issues would then be access and the du heSt object on indicate thedCross the safety department indicated in the form of a letter that y had o easements being in place. Mr. Koeth indicated he agreed with the Architectural Review Board 7