02/07/2002 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

trees and the children living in the units playing in their yards. Fie would like to see fences put in place for the abutting residents. Mr. Gillespie suggested that he was not a fan of fences but he would do what it takes to get the plan approved. If Planning Commission wants a fence put up then that is what they will do. Mr. Rymarczyk informed the audience members that the Board of Zoning Appeals board could not address landscapina or fencing only the variances being requested. Mr. Waken questioned what would happen regarding the ground sign discussed at the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Rymarczyk indicated that the applicant withdrew the request for a ground sign. Mr. Gillespie indicated that the sign package was not on the docket but they would have a sign package ready for the Plannina Commission to review. Mr. Weber questioned if a traffic report had been received. Mr. Gillespie indicated that they will have a report by the planning commission meeting. Mr. Maloney reviewed the traffic engineers letter stating; although the volume increase will appear to be larger the vehicle carrying capacity of the that portion of Kennedy Ridge Road can easily handle the traffic volume increase created by the proposal. Mr. Waken disagrees with the traffic engineer and believes there will be a traffic problem. Mr. Waken believes there are currently traffic problems because of Bridlewood Apartments traffic, which the engineer does not address in his report. NLr. Weber commented that the noise from I-480 was such that at times it seamed that cars were running right through their homes. He questioned if there are zoning codes, which would require the applicants to increase the amount of insulation used on the new homes that will abut I-480. Mr. 1Vlaloney indicated that those issues would need to be addressed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Wilson voiced his concerns regarding the traffic engineers recommendation to make sure the driveway alignment is directed between 24871 and 24881 Kennedy Ridge as his property abuts the entrance. Mr. Maloney indicated that the Planning Commission still had quite a few issues to address. This board can only address the variances being requested. Mrs. Sergi questioned if the existing garage behind building number (4) would be removed. Mr. Gillespie suggested that the owner of the garage has suggested that she has an easement allowing the garaae to be there. He suggested they would not make her remove the garage if indeed she has an easement. W. Kremzar motioned to grant Kennedy Ridge Apartments of 24900 Kennedy Ridge Road their request for variance (1123.12). Which consists of 40 apartment units and that the following variances be grated; 1. A 35 foot variance for parking, drive & garage in lieu of landscaping (code requires 50' applicant shows 15') section (1137.07) (g). 2. An 11 foot 9 inch variance for building setback @ west property line (code requires 47' 9", applicant shows 36'), section (1137.07) (g). 3. An 11 foot 3 inch variance for building setback @ northeast corner (code requires 42'3", applicant shows 31'), section (1137.07) (g). 4. A 30 foot variance for buildings T/O to closes to private drives (code requires 50', applicant shows 20'), section (1137.07) (b) (2). 5. A Maximum 9 foot variance for parking T/O to wall of main buildings T/O (code requires 15', applicant shows 6' or more), section (1137.08) table. 6. A Maximum 10 foot variance for driveways T/O to walls of main buildings (code requires 30', applicant shows 20'), section 1137.08) table. - 7. An 8 foot 9 inch variance for distance between building & boundary-line (code requires 58' 9", applicant shows 50'), section 1137.07) (g). - Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 sections: (1149.04 (d)), 1137.07 (g), (1137.07 (b) (2)) & (1137.08). The motion was seconded by T. Kelly. Roll call on the motion, T. Kelly, J. Konold, W. Kremzar and Maloney, "yes" and N. Sergi "abstain". Variances Grantec9. Note: In the framing of the motion the clerk announced that the Kennedy Ridge proposal would return to the Planning Commission on February 12, 2002, at 7:30 p.m. 4