10/09/1990 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

by the county. One of the residents presented a copy of the traffic study to the Commission who presented this to Engineering Department for their interpretation. Mr. Bollinger responded to the various requests by stating that he has a paper from the city advising him exactly what he needed and he did present what was asked of him. He asked that the Conunission present him a written list of exactly what they would need. In response to the Chairman's suggestion he gave his phone number, 777- 7873, to the residents. Members agreed that this proposal should go to the Safety Department for an ini.tial review (further review could be necessary after the traffic study is discussed); the forester in regard to the many trees that are both in the buffer and on the main property; review by the Engineering Department for drainage and an analysis of the traffic study; to the Law Department to investigate the possibility of ingress or egress onto Brookpark Road. They requested that the developer present; an estimate to what phase 2 will consist of; information regarding plans for refuse removal; detailed buffering plan around the area; lighting within the complex; traffic control within the development; the impact of the entrance close to Brookpark Road; and plans for security on the property. T. Morgan moved to table the request until the next meeting when the above mentioned items can be presented and discussed, seconded by B. Gorris, ancl tmanimously approved. The neighbors were advised that this would be heard in two weeks and no notices would be sent. 5) Steeple Walk Apartments, property located south of I-480, west of S. R. 252, and north of lots facing Butternut Ridge Road. Revisions to plans previously approved by. Planning Corrunission on December 12, 1989. Mr. Haas, architect, explained the proposed'changes: they have reduced the project by 2,000 square feet, but added 8,300 square -feet to the living area of the apartments- (added approximately -32 square feet to each unit) by reducing the circulation area by about 111,000 square feet; they ha,ve added 20 additiona.l parking spaces but have added 50 inside spaces; the foot print of the building and set backs remain the same except one building was shifted somewhat in the northwest corner; have changed the brick somewhat on the exterior of the building; and have. added one lake. Mr. Blacksmith, one of the developers, stated that the ponds are part of their retention system and clarified that the city requires a five year retention and they have a 100 year storm water retention. The ponds will have fountains to keep the water flowing, and will not be mosquito infested. Both Mr. Bierman and Mr. Gorris believed that above ground retention was illegal in the city. City Engineer Deichmann explained he would be in favor of this considering the 100 year protection which is far beyond what is required. He does not believe that the ordinance would prohibit having a water feature. Assistant Law Director Dubelko stated that there was nothing in the ordinance which would prohibit this type of retention system. Mr. Camnerata, the developer, explained that they were concerned about flooding with the original system and hired an expert in this area who suggested this system. He understood that there was no ordinance prohibiting above ground retention; and pointed'out that because they would own the property there would be no question about who would maintain the lakes. Mr. Bierman read portions of the Council minutes 6