03/18/1999 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

? Appeals board show leniency as the majority of the building is 20'feet high. Mr. Conway suggested it is up to the building department to identify the worst case scenarios for the board. It is up to the developer to show the Board of Zoning Appeals that the building is only a certain height percentage here and gets better as it goes along. Mr. Allan questioned what year Olmsted Manor was built. Mr. Suhayda suggested the building was built some time in the late 50's. Mr. Allan suggested with how close the two buildings are to each other, the new building seems to be in direct contrast to the original building. He is also not sure if the proposal is workable, as there is only one access on this parcel, and one access that would be shared with the original building. Mr. Allan suggested he had not been involved with a development where so many variances were being requested, and was not sure hotiv to approach the case. Mr. Suhayda suggested the size and angle of the lot makes it difficult to stay within the requirements. Mr. Yager reviewed that if the two lots were consolidated the 10'foot sideyard setback could be eliminated. The 12'foot rear-parking setback that is need is due to being aligned with what already eYist. A church owns the property behind the proposal and they are not present so they must not have an issue with the proposal. The 23'foot west sideyard variance could be eliminated if the trvo buildings were consolidated and a firewall was used. The 16'foot front yard setback is needed, because Mill Road is set on an angle and the building is not, therefore the edge of the building crosses the angle. The issue of only having one access drive is not really an issue because both buildings have the same owner. The only way this proposal would be a big issue is if one of the lots were sold. Mr. Yager suggested that is why he asked why the two parcels were not consolidated as it could eliminate most of the variances being requested. If the 4 efficiencies were removed the 1.2-% variance could be e(iminated. Mrs. Schulz suggested the lights would need to be zero foot-candles at the property line. l4r. Yager suggested the double gable area should be brick on the front and sides to make it look more residential. Mr. Suhayda suggested the condos neYt door were brick and only the top gable portion was vinyl siding. Mr. 4'ager suggested that would be acceptable, if the brick came up to the gable. Mr. Yager suggested Planning Commission suggested brick. Mr. Liggett suggested taking the briclc to the top of the portico in the center and using brick all the way up the ends. Mr. Yager suggested the vinyl siding mixture with the brick band would tie the two buildings together. Mr. Liggett suggested a 3'foot brick band would not tie the buildings together. Mr. Yager suggested the proposal be tabled so the board members could see the suggested changes. Mr. Conway reviewed that tlie Board of Zoning Appeals would review the Architectural Review Boards suggestions, and take them into consideration when making their motion. He suggested the proposal would then come back to the Architectural Review Board then on to Planning Commission for final review. M. Yager motioned to table the Olmsted Manor Assisted Living project, and have them return with documents that are more reflective of the comments that were made at tonight's meeting. The motion was second by K. Schulz, and unanimously approved. IV. ADJOiJRNMENT: M. Yager motioned to eYCUSe the absence of B. Zergott, and adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by K. Schulz and unanimously approved. In the framing of the motion Mr. Conway indicated at the close of the ineeting he would like to review a couple of minor changes with the board members before they left. Meeting adjourned at 6:30pm. AssotO?Chairrnan, A Yager of Commissions, Donna Rote