Laserfiche WebLink
..,: • • , <br />1. A 35 foot variance for parking, drive & garage in lieu of landscaping (code requires 50' applicant <br />shows 15') section (1137.07) (g). <br />2. An 11 foot 9 inch variance for building setback @ west property line (code requires 47' 9", <br />applicant shows 36'), section (1137.07) (g). <br />, <br />3. An 11 foot 3 inch variance for building setback @ northeast corner (code requires 42737) <br />applicant shows 31'), section (1137.07) (g). <br />4. A 30 foot variance for buildings T/O too close to private drives (code requires 50', applicant <br />shows 20'), section (1137.07) (b) (2). <br />5. A Maximum 9 foot variance for parking T/O to wall of main buildings T/O (code requires 15', <br />applicant shows 6' or more), section (1137.08) table. <br />6. A Maximum 10 foot variance for driveways T/O to walls of main buildings (code requires 30', <br />applicant shows 20'), section 1137.08) table. , <br />7. An 8 foot 9 inch variance for distance between building & boundary-line (code requires 58' 9", <br />applicant shows 50'), section 1137.07) (g). <br />Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 sections: (1149.04 (d)), 1137.07 (g), (1137.07 (b) (2)) 8c <br />(1137.08). <br />Chairman Maloney called all interested parties forward to review their request. Mr. Gillespie, Vice <br />President of the NRP Group, and the following neighbors: Mr. Wilson, NIr. Yunich, Mr. Miller, Mr. <br />Waken and Mr. Weber, came forward to be sworn in and address the request. Mr. Gillespie indicated <br />that they have been working with Planning Commission to come up with a desirable plan. He brought <br />drawings of the buildings that would face the residential neighbors so the board could see what they <br />would look like. At the request of Planning Commission, the buildings were reduced in size. The <br />road was widened for emergency vehicles. 1VIr. Gillespie suggested that the project is of a high <br />quality. There will be stone trim and shaker siding to give a lodge appearance. Prior to the start of <br />tonight's meeting he met and spoke with the residents. He suggested that the residents felt that in <br />addition to adding additional 6 to 8 foot trees adding fencing would help buffer them. Mr. Gillespie <br />announced that if the Planning Commission feels that a fence would be the best thing, then he would <br />erect a fence. Mr. Gillespie suggested that they could build the 44 units that they are allowed without <br />variances, however, they would cluster the units in the middle of the lot and would be shoved back to <br />back and require no variances. He suggested plans were submitted to the fire chief and assistant fire <br />cluef and they indicated they preferred the current plans, which are before this board tonight. Mr. <br />Maloney read allowed a report submitted by the Engineering Department regarding the access and <br />turning radius of the site (see attached document at back of minutes). Mr. Gillespie indicated that he <br />would ineet with the forester before the Architectural Review Board meeting and a detailed landscape <br />plan will be submitted for review. Mr. Wilson indicated he was concerned about variance request <br />number (2) two. He believed that a larger variance was required. Mr. Rymarczyk indicated that only <br />an 11.9-foot variance is required. Mr. Wilson asked if the garage would need a variance. Mr. <br />Rymarczyk covered what would and would not need a variance in the southwest area. Mr. Wilson's <br />second concern is there is currently a drainage problem on Kennedy Ridge and there is a swell that <br />carries the water away now and there is a lot of mounding proposed. He would like to make sure <br />that the mounds do not create more water problems. Mr. Maloney indicated that the applicant would <br />need to make sure the draining does not become an issue. Mr. Gillespie commented that he would <br />contact the engineer to make sure the plans would not overlook the stream. Mr. Wilson indicated <br />that he would like to see his property fenced in. There is currently a very old fence that he would like <br />to see replaced. Mr. Gillespie indicated that the fence will be fixed on their side and they will <br />maintain their side or if sections need replacing then they would do so. If Planning Commission tells <br />them that they want all the homes abutting the site to be buffered with fencing then they will erect the <br />fences. Mr. Miller indicated that he is directly south of the proposal and he is concerned about the <br />trees remaining and having evergreen trees added as well. Mr. Yunich is concerned about the size of <br />3