10/12/2004 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The proposed consolidated parcel will conform to the area and lot width requirements of the Zoning Code. Planning Commission tabled this proposal on 9/28/04. The proposal to consolidate the parcels for Corner Stone was tabled until the applicant was the sole owner of all parcels involved in the consolidation. V. NEW BUSINESS 1. Kennedv Ridge Apartments; 24900 Kennedy 12idge Road: (WRD 41 Proposal consists of site improvements. Note: The Architectural Review Board addressed this proposal on 9/22/04. Planning Commission tabled this proposal on 9/28/04. Chairman Koeth called all interested parties forward to address their proposal. Planning Director Wenger reviewed that the issues from the last meeting were lighting at the entrance, fencing and landscaping the adjacent neighboring properties. Since the last meeting the applicant has made no attempt to contact the Building Department or the Planning Department in any way. Therefore there is nothing to report. Mr. Gillespie, Vice President with NRP Group, was present to review the proposal. The applicant explained that the representative who attended the last meeting was not familiar with the project and was not prepared to answer questions or address changes. Mr. Gillespie is present to address any concerns Planning Commission may have. On the east end of the property they are constructing a white vinyl 6-foot high fence with lattice work atop the fence to block the view of the neighbor's dogs. If the dogs don't see movement then they are quiet so they don't mind providing the fence to keep the dogs quiet. They have chosen vinyl fencing even though the price is higher so that it looks better. The lighting that was installed was a mistake, the contractor misread the height to be 18-feet instead of 18-inch tall and installed the standard 15-feet light poles. However, they would like the board to take into consideration that low lights have problems with vandalism and become buried under snow and damaged during the winter. They would like Planning Commission to consider allowing the lights to remain as is. The lighting at the entry sign was spilling over, but they have added a shroud over the light to buffer the neighbors and evergreens are going to be planted behind the sign to further block light spillage. The buffering area that was to remain in its natural state would have been disturbed if the drains were placed to ensure no runoff so mounds were constructed and the drainage system was placed in front of the mounds to malce sure the neighboring property does not have any water runoff. Tlie board questioned why the applicant had not planted the evergreens that were promised to the neighbors under the original approval. The applicant suggested that he was waiting for the neighbors to place stakes were they wanted the 5 or 6 evergreens planted in their yards. The board reviewed that at the last meeting the applicant was instructed to meet with the City Planner and residents to work out a solution to the issues and that had not talcen place as reported by the planner. The existing fencing system on the site is board on board therefore the commission felt that the new fencing being added to the site should also be board on board. The height of the poles would be acceptable on the interior of the site but along the entrance of the site up to the first set of garages the lights only need to reflect the entrance path they do not need to be security lights. The lights along the entrance should be what were originally approved. The light fixtures themselves on the buildings are a nautical style which flows with the style of the development and the pole lights are a box style which does not flow with the theme of the development. Applicants were asked to change the heads of the pole lights to fit the style of the development which is a nautical theme. 2