10/10/1989 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

? -? --` PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 10, 1989 PAGE 4 pezso.n pointing out that this complex has many more amenities than older ones and that the larger units would accommodate families. Mr. Thomas questioned if there are any guidelines for driveway in reference to school buses.and also if the 424 parking spaces would be sufficient (207 spaces in garages and 217 open spaces). Mr. Stogsdill stated that the 1.5 ratio of spaces to units has proven satisfactory in the past, more spaces could be provided if needed, and that handicapped spaces will be shown as soon as they have designated which suites are to be equippedfor the handicapped. Nir. Thomas further questioned if a sub- division would be necessary. Assistant Law Director Dubelko pointed out that the Council did approve this and it is a matter of record. Mr. Bierman believes that all the noise generating facilities are close to Butternut Ridge (swimming pool, ball courts, etc), pointing out that the court order allowed no structures in the area immediately adjacent to Butternut Ridge, and he.would like the plans redesigned to keep all the recreational facilities away from Butternut Ridge and closer to the apartments and future office complex. Several residents; B. Scheef, C. Crabs, Mrs. Mandalikis, Dr. Davis, B. Shulz and Councilman McKay had many concerns: swimming pool too close to the historic area and could be another distraction to motorists at a dangerous intersection; all recreation.: facilities should be relocated toward the center of the complex; the density of the complex is too great; only one access could prove to be a safety hazard; lakes should not be used for open retention; trash compacter should be further away from residential area; concerned ttiat city will be collecting trash; would like more specific information on buffering, mounding fencing and landscaping (would like increased buffer adjacent to ball courts); concerned because two thirds of the units are one bedroom apartments, could be a lower rent district; eventually there could be access onto Butternut Ridge Road; drainage will be affected;. believes this deVelopment should have own police and fire protection; believes that there,should be one entrance for both the apartments and office complex to eliminate drives onto Great Northern; questioned if Developers Diversif ied had the right-to sell of this portion of the property under the court order; questioned if the swim- ming pool cculd be considered a structure since structures not allowed at that location; and finally requested to see a master plan showing bo.th the apartment and the office complex. Mr. Franz, representing Developers Diversified, read Section 10 of the court order which referred to the portion of property at the intersection and stipulated that it should be. landscaped, remain open, and be used only in conjunction with recreational uses associated with the multi-family use. He maintains that a swimming pool would fall into that category. In respose to the neighbors statements, Mr. Stogsdill responded: buffer areas that are heavily wooded will remain natural, open buffer areas will be mounded and landscaped; a secondary emergency exit could be planned through the office complex, but a single access to the two developments could present security problems and there were no plans for access onto Butternut Ridge. Mr. Cesen advised that the developers could not change the natural flow of drainage. Mr. Gorris questioned if the Commission would be allowed to restrict access so that only one drive would be allowed for both the apartment and the office complex. Mr. Franz stated that the State had designated three access points in that segment of the roadway and one of them was. almost exactly where this drive is planned, they will look at a combined access, but they do not believe that such.an .