Laserfiche WebLink
been constructedo Mr. Berryhill clarified that it had been determined that a <br />light at the apartment would be too close to the light at 480, the proposed <br />light at the entrance to the office complex, and the existing light at Great <br />Northern and Butternut Ridge. Traff-Pro had decided that the timing would be <br />critical to maintain the flow of traffic. Mr. Sepic stated that the tenants of <br />the complex were the ones who would suffer. Mr. Deichmann clarified that it <br />would be illegal to put in a traffic signal if it did not meet State warrants, <br />and this would not, nor does he think it ever will. He explained how the <br />warrants were established. Mr. Berryhill advised that the prbjected study for a <br />light at the office complex barely met those warrants. Mr. Gorris suggested <br />that access be permitted between this parcel and the office complex drive so <br />that residents could use that exit< Mr. Thomas suggested a light that operated <br />only during rush hours, or that the developer be required to contribute to a <br />light at a later date. He agreed that a common road for this developments might <br />be a solution. Mr. Berryhill advised that this had been discussed, but they <br />were against it because children would have access and might play in the <br />parking lot; the former apartment developer did not want it because hotel and <br />office traffic might go through their complex to get to Butternut Ridge. Since <br />there is only one entrance/exit, Mr. Skoulis would like an emergency access <br />between the two developments which could be chained off. The members do not <br />believe this would be necessary since it is not imusual to ha,ve ane access to a <br />development. In reference to the impact on the sewers, Mr. Deichmann advised <br />that the sewers would be adequate for the apartment complex, but they would <br />have to be enlarged with the construction of.the other development. Mr. Conway <br />advised that the city charges a sewer impact fee for this purpose. Prior to a <br />motion being made, Assistant Law Director Dubelko asked to make two points <br />regarding.the proposed sidewalk. He read the settlement order that stated there <br />would be no means of egress or ingress to any of the subject parcels onto <br />Butternut Ridge Road and advised if the sidewalk is included, it should be made <br />clear that the City is not waiving any of its rights in the future prohibiting <br />any type of access onto Butternut. Secondly, he stated that it would be <br />appropriate to require this developer to contribute to any traffic study, <br />signal, or lane changes that might be necessary. In response to Mr. Morgan's <br />question, he stated that this should be made part of the motion. He also <br />believes that it is implied that up dated traffic studies could be required as <br />the area develops. Mr. Skoulis again stated that the sidewalk for children <br />going to school was necessary since the school board had stated_to Mr. Conway <br />that they preferred to pick up on Butternut Ridge, even though they might at a <br />later date be pressured into picking up within the complex. Mr. Gorris noted <br />that if there were no sidewalk, they would have to be picked up on site. Mr. <br />Conway stated, in reference to the Fire Department's concern about vehicular <br />access, that he had discussed this with the developer and there was one area <br />that appeared tight, but that could easily be rectified. T. Morgan moved that <br />the concept and site plan as proposed by the Butternut Ridge Apartments located <br />at I-480, west of S.R. 252 and north of lots facing Butternut Ridge Road, be <br />approved subject to the recommendations of the Architectural Review Board and <br />the following items: that the sidewalk through the recreational area to <br />Butternut Ridge be taken out; that the Planning Com[nission has no objection to <br />the wood burning fireplaces now that the developer has shown the proper storage <br />and given information relative to that; that the above ground retention system <br />will be installed as recommended by the Engineering Department and meet all <br />approvals of the Engineering Department with regard to the fencing, aeration, <br />various types of aut-fall for the 3, 10, and 100 year rains and whatever else <br />is required by the Engineering Department; in conjunction or together the <br />developer will work with the Architectural Review Board and the forester on a11