05/22/2002 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

the gentleman they spoke with and they met with is Duane Limpert. There was discussion about which councilman represents that ward. Mrs. Kilbane pointed out that George Nasher is the councilman that addressed the board at the last Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Lawrence indicated they need to talk with Mr. Nasher if he is, in fact, the councilman for their ward. Mr. Chambers indicated Mr. Limpert portrayed himself as the councilman for that area. Mr. Zergott said at this point, they still need to go for the wall, and they need a forester's report. Mr. Yager asked how far it is from the property line to the face of the parking area. Mr. Grusenmeyer indicated there is 5-6 feet. Mr. Yager asked how much space there is from the property line to the face of the retaining wall. Mr. Lawrence said the retaining wall doesn't show up on their survey; it is on another property. Mr. Yager asked if anyone from the Architectural Review Board had been to the site. He asked what the back wall looks like. He said he can appreciate the brick wall, but added it may be the easy answer but not necessarily the accurate answer. If there are mature trees and the pines are doing a good job, he wondered if they could supplement with some more pines as they have asked most of their applicants to do. It would be more of a landscaped environment instead of a brick environment. Mr. Zergott pointed out that most of the trees are weed trees. Mr. Grusenmeyer said that is what they had done in their original landscaping plan. He indicated he has pictures of the back of the lot. He mentioned the white picket fence and a nice stand of pines. There is a very thick stand of juniper as well that goes from 4-7 feet high from their property line. He said in their original plan they had a thick planting of pines that made a double row and added junipers and the intent was to do it all in greenery. He said if he was living there that is what he would like to see. He pointed out that Planning Commission said put in a wall but it would kill the trees. He said the wall is engineering solution, the architectural solution is to plant enough greenery that they don't have that problem. Mr. Yager asked if the existing lot and new lot have the same dimensions in terms of property line. Mr. Grusenmeyer said it is the same. He pointed out an existing parking set back. He said they decided to meet with the residents and councilman. They thought they had the right councilman. That situation took them by surprise. He said you can see the little bit of a conundrum they are in right now. Their original approach was to plant a lot more greenery, evergreen material, and have a double row of it so it came to the back. He pointed out all the trees they would like to maintain. He added there are a number of uses this site could be zoned for. It could be a gas station, or a drugstore. He said if Stearns Rd. is extended, it almost becomes a corner lot. He pointed out if his client comes in, it will be locked up for a nice use for a long period of time. Mr. Yager asked him to explain the parking lot lighting, rooftop equipment, and decorative columns. Mr. Grusenmeyer showed them the revised landscaping plan that shows the fence in place of the landscaping. It is different in the very back only because of the Planning Commission recommendations. Mr. Yager asked where they plow to in the winter. Mr. Lawrence indicated the area they have for that on the diagram. Mr. Grusenmeyer said their plans show no light off the property. He said the spill lighting is 0.0. They have projected pole lighting for both 15 feet and 20 feet. He said the height of the pole is not as important as the type of fixture. He showed both layouts to the board. He said the spillover is 0-foot candles, using cut off fixtures, with 15-foot poles. He then showed the plan for 20-foot high poles. They would end up with one less. The higher you make them, the less power you have. It becomes an environmental concern. The board reviewed photographs of the site. Mr. Yager asked for information on the mechanical systems. Mr. Grusenmeyer said they have a series of rooftop units that are not visible and will remain. Mr. Liggett said that with looking at the types of homes that are back there, he believes the higher poles would be more disturbing to the residents. He would really prefer the 15-foot high poles. Mr. Yager suggested going with the 15-foot poles and spreading them out as if they were going with the 20 footers. Mr. Grusenmeyer indicated they could do that. He then reviewed some of the lighting requirements they have do deal with. Mr. Yager said they could spread it out and achieve lighting that is comfortable, and safe, and keep it at 15 feet. They would achieve what Planning Commission is looking for which is fewer poles. He said the picture is very revealing in terms of the homes. Mr. Lawrence said that is not offensive to them. They do not want a lot of light. Mr. Grusenmeyer 3