Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, Applicant agreed to place a board on board fence instead of a vinyl fence. The applicant <br />suggested that they would like to give the landscape plan to the neighbor and if he likes it have <br />him sign off on it and that is what will be done. The Law Department advised against the <br />applicant's suggestion. The board reminded the applicant that specific landscape plans were <br />approved, furthermore at the last meeting applicants believed that 18 to 24 inoh lights would not <br />be practical for the exact reasons the applicant stated earlier. The board asked that the 5 lights <br />should have an appearance of a residential type light fixture no higher than 8-feet tall. The <br />applicant felt that he would rather place what was approved in the original plans as he does not <br />feel that he could find an 8-foot style light to fit the nautical style of the development. The board <br />would like to have the applicant come back with samples and cut sheets of the style of lights that <br />will be used. They will return with plans showing the shroud on the ground sign light and the <br />evergreens that are to be added. The site plan should also show the placement of the proposed <br />trees that are to be placed on the neighbor's lots. The plan is to show the board on board fence as <br />agreed upon. Mr. Rymaxczyk suggested that a 6-foot light pole would be a safety hazard they <br />would need to be at least 8' to 10' tall for the safety of pedestrians and cars. The board requested <br />the applicant submit a new photometric plan with the proposed lights. The board advised the <br />applicant to submit the requested documents to the City Planner prior to the next meeting. <br />The following residents were present to speak; Mr. Miller and Mr. Yunich. The residents had the <br />following concerns; 1. The wattage of the light bulbs attached to the building are to high. 2. The <br />buffer zone was to be 50-feet and now it is only 25-feet from residential homes. The buffer area <br />needs to be cleaned as there is trash, debris, poison-ivy and weeds. Residents believed that the <br />applicant was instructed to clean the area out. The applicants agreed to lower each condo's light <br />bulb wattage to decrease the glare. The applicant suggested that the City forester instructed them <br />to not touch the buffer area in any way. However if the forester would allow them they would <br />clean the debris and poison-ivy out. 3. The residents would prefer board on board fencing as <br />they do not feel that the white vinyl fencing blends into the neighborhood. 4. The residents <br />questioned why the trees that were promised had not been planted. There is a light pole on the <br />site that shines onto Mr. Yunich's yard that he would like lowered. 5. The neighbors want the <br />irees planted and fencing erected right away as it is almost November and too late to plant. <br />Chairman Koeth advised both the applicant and the neighbors that the City Planner should be <br />included in any meetings they have. The board asked that the city planner have the forester view <br />the site and advise what should be done in the buffer area. The board requested the applicant <br />show all changes on a new site plan. The applicant is free to plant the landscaping which was <br />approved. <br />R. Koeth moved to table Kennedy Ridge Apartments of 24900 Kennedy Ridge Road their <br />request which consists of site improvements, with the following recommendations; 1. <br />Developer is to meet with the City Planner and residents both. 2. Look at placing shrouds <br />on some of the lights and lowering the wattage of those lights on the buildings. 3. There is <br />to be board on board fencing. 4. The entrance light poles are to be 8' to 10' high which <br />includes the base, with light fiztures which fit the scheme or design of the site. 5. The <br />additional plantings at the ground sign, and those promised to abutting neighbors are to be <br />shown on the new site plan. 6. Planning Director, City Forester and the Developer are to <br />meet to look at what should be cleaned up on the site. 7. The applicant is to submit a new <br />photometric plan for the lighting changes. J. Lasko seconded the motion which was <br />unanimously approved. <br />3