06/11/1991 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• ? 6 ? n ?. . _. including consideration of mounding or other type of buffering to protect the residents along Butternut; additionally, at this time we are putting the developer on notice that we will request limited hours of operation of all recreational facilities on this complex; we would also like the A.R.B. to pay particular attention to the lighting within the development, and the proposed signage. We ask that when the developer returns to this board, that the traffic study which was prepared a couple of years ago be updated if the engineering department deems such an update necessary. The Comnission would also like plans indicating where a11 the interior sidewalks will be located; if the fireplaces will be gas or wood burning, and if they are to be wood, where the wood will be stored. A copy of the plans are to be forwarded to the Safety Department for their input and also to the School Board for clarification as to whether or not these children will be bussed or will have to walk (since there are points on this property which are more than 1 mile from Butternut School), and where they would be picked up if they are bussed. A copy of the plan should also be forwarded to the forester for his input as to the trees on the parcel, and to Engineering for their input. The motion was seconded by A. Skoulis, and unanimously approved. During the motion Mr. Franz, representing Developers Diversified, had advised that during the discussion of the previous traffic study it had been mentioned that since this is a State highway there are minimm criteria which must be met in order to have a signal, whether it is wanted or not. He asked that the original study be looked before a new study was required since he recalled that there was projected about half of the threshold for this entrance. Mr. Furman questioned if they could not build the originally approved proposal and was advised that they could..., He then questioned if this scheme would create more traffic than the initial scheme. Mr. Gorris stated that he is more concerned that the traffic has.changed on Great Northern, but agreed that they would be allowed to build the first proposal. Mr. Conway clarified that the first proposal did get all its approvals, the second one did not; and pointed out that under the present code, there was no limitation on a Planping Commission approval. The Engineering Department will determine if it is reasonable to ask the developer to have the traffic study updated. It was clarified that the revised plans should be forwarded to the Safety Department and the forester, not the plans presented this evening. V. COMMUNICATIONS: Ord. 91-88: Building Commissioner Conway advised that there is a problem in some of the older areas of the city where there is an outdoor stairway with a drain connected to the sanitary sewer. This ordinance would exclude the rear yard restriction so that no variance would be required when these stairwells are covered, since they do ha.ve a problem with flooding and most of them do not have sufficient rear yards. This will apply only to existing conditions, not new construction. Mr. McDermott thought there should be some size limitation set. Mr. Conway stated that the ordinance specifically stated tha.t the enclosure could only be over the stairwell, not a larger area. J. Thomas moved to approve the Ordinance amending Chapter 1135, entitled One and Tao Family District , by adding a new Section 1135.08(B)5 as written in Ordinance 91-88, seconded by L. Orlowski, and unanimously approved. VI• COMNffTTEE REPORTS : No items. 7