Laserfiche WebLink
< <br />PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 27, 1987 PAGE 4 <br />customers since parking lot has been overflowing; previous promises <br />have not been kept by owner; trees (on Hickory Lane) were not put in <br />by Mr. Horvath, as indiciated, and are maintained by the association; <br />property has not been well maintained previously; doubts Mr. Horvath's <br />spirit of co-operation and wants guarantees, not promises. Mr. and <br />Mrs. Haneburg, 30849 Old Shore (directly behind parking lot) mentioned <br />some of the same problems pointing out that window curtains were left <br />open so that they could'see strobe lights; many trees on property had <br />been damaged; and previous promise that this would be a first class <br />dinner club was not kept. Mr. Grimm, 3083301dShore (also behind <br />property) stated he would'see his own attomey. Mr. R. Wagner, 30881 <br />Old Shore (also behind property) stated he wants a fenee. Mr. Thomas, <br />a resident of the development, eomplained beeause plans were still not <br />complete, and questioned if they were again withdrawing them. Mr. <br />Braun again stated that they will submit a conforming plan. Mr. <br />Dubelko again explained that city is trying to resolve the issues; <br />that a fence is to be installed by the Feb ruary 4th hearing; that <br />proposal will.be referred to the Architectural Board of Review; that <br />when these plans return to Planning Commission it is to be expected <br />that they will conform; and if the business is to continue to operate <br />in the iterim (grand opening is January 29th), the owners should do <br />what it takes to protect the neighbors: valet parking, turning off <br />lights in rear parking area, security guards, etc. and this should <br />be proposed at this. time.. Residents.continued: to discuss doub ts about resolving existing prolilems; if fencing would be of good quality; <br />if conforming plans would be submitted ana vi.olations aetually corrected; <br />and suggested that perhaps tfie association should take,legal: action. <br />Mr. Dubelko advised the Commission that these plans should'be referred <br />to the Architectural Review Board and that some agreement should be <br />received at this time from the d'eveloper that he is willing. to conform, <br />regarding lowering the seating,capacity, and at the final Planning <br />Commission meeting, will present a conforming parleing plan, lighting <br />plan? including landscaping, dumpster Tocation and screening.explaining <br />that.fence should be installed before. Eebruary 4th. Mr. Gorris pre- <br />fers to defer the fence approval until after the Arehitectural Board's, <br />review of plans because he would like their• inp ut as to height of <br />fence, possib le mounding of property and landscaping espeeially <br />since it might not be possible to install a fence now whi:Te ground is <br />still frozen. He would also Iike some alternatives to soTve existing <br />problems since hard surface cannot be installed until spr•ing. Mr. <br />Braun suggested that the owner sliould make application for the fence <br />by February 4th, but wait until after the Architectural Board's <br />review to instalT it. Mr. Dubelko agreed that they should not have <br />to put up a fence and then take it down again. B. Gorris moved to <br />refer the Nightfall Night Club proposal to the Architectural Board of <br />Review for their input, we realize that these plans do not meet code <br />as they relate to parking and that they will be so amended before <br />they go to the Architectural Review Board. We would also like the <br />plans that go to the Architectural Review Board to address,particu- <br />larly, screening to the neighbors to the north; we would like the <br />plans to address the fact that the area on Hickory Lane on the north- <br />west section of the property line is now being used as an exit and it <br />should not be, and would like to know what recommendations are made