01/08/2002 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

submitted for the Architectural Review Board will have much more detail. There will be sidewalks throughout the site as well as along the entrance. Mr. Gillespie suggested that the Fire Chief was satisfied with the new plans when they met at the fire station. Mr. Spalding questioned if the applicant had met with the forester or seen the foresters report. Mr. Gillespie indicated that he spoke over the telephone to the forester and agreed to meet with the forester before the Architectural Review Board meeting. Mr. Asseff questioned the amount of variances needed. Mr. Gillespie felt that they had decreased the number of variances required. Mr. Rymarczyk commented that the amount of variances required was about the same. However, the size of the variances required are smaller. Mr. Rymarczyk reviewed the differences in the variances required. Mr. Asseff questioned why a ground sign was needed and why the board did not have plans for the sign. Mr. Gillespie suggested that the ground sign was needed to identify the site i. e. name of site and address of site. Mr. Asseff commented that the board would need to view the proposed ground sign before recommending the approval of the variance needed. Mr. Rymarczyk suggested that it was mentioned that the size of the ground sign would be 20 square feet, which would only require a variance for having a ground sign on residential property. Mr. Gillespie suggested that he would be willing to bring the ground sign back for review after the Architectural Review Board meeting. Mr. Koeth informed Mr. Gillespie that the Planning Commission could not recommend that the variance required for the ground sign be approved without seeing the sign first. Mr. Dubelko suggested that the applicant could run the development through a11 the boards and return in the future to review the sign. Mr. Gillespie indicated that he would prefer to return with the sign later. Mr. Koeth questioned if there would be any streetlights and if so what type of streetlights would be used. Mr. Gillespie commented that a11 the lights along the drives, front doors and entrances were designed to minimize glare. Most of the lighting used on the homes will be coach lights and low colonial lights are placed along the streets. 1VIr. Asseff questioned the height of the pole lights. Mr. Gillespie indicated that the poles would be 12 feet tall with a colonial style lamp. Mr. Asseff indicated that the applicant should use a soft high-pressure sodium or an incandescent light. Mr. Gillespie suggested that when he returned with the sign he would have more detail on the lights. Mr. Asseff indicated that the board would need to see the light fixture style that will be used. Mr. Koeth opened the floor to audience members with questions. Councilman Dean McKay requested that the entrance lights be box or landscape type lights so there will be no glare. He reviewed that the lights along Wellington Place which have shields are still too bright and cast a glare. Mr. Gillespie suggested that he would meet with Councilman McKay before returning to the Planning Commission to come up with lights that would be acceptable to everyone. Mrs. O'Rourke suggested using ground lighting/path lights to achieve the lodge type effect they want. Councilman McKay did not feel that a ground sign was needed anywhere but the entrance to the site. Mr. NTiller a resident commented that the appiicants did not do well at the first meeting due to requiring so many variances. Three meetings later and the same amount of variances are required to make this plan fit on the lot. He does not feel that the applicant should put so many units on the lot. The board seemed to have a problem with the number of variances required at the first meeting. Now just because the variances are smaller in overall size the board seems to be saying that is acceptable. They have gone from eight (8) unit buildings to six (6) unit buildings however; the footprints of the buildings remain the same. The first plan showed that there would be an 80-foot buffer between his home and the site now it shows only a 50-foot buffer. Mr. Asseff questioned if the number of units or the square footage of each unit had decreased. Mr. Gillespie indicated that the size of the units is the same and there is the same number of units as well. The number of units is a critical factor, they never indicated that they would decrease the number of units built. He feels that they have met the issues that were requested i.e. safety factors, dimensional issues and decreased the size of variances needed. They still need a number of vaxiances but today's codes are written for larger lots. They are allowed 40 units which they show and they have done their best to make the plans