Laserfiche WebLink
: " ?? ' • <br />.?, . <br />Department stated that there is adeqt <br />but no final decision has been made ; <br />since the final plans have not been <br />required. Storm water requirements wi <br />reference to the Sanitary Sewers thei <br />and inflow of storm water into these <br />that it is his responsibility to pt <br />available flow monitors to use since <br />with the agreement with E.P.A. and <br />Mr. Bender, engineer for Shore West; <br />system was designed to handle this ? <br />flow from this development than would <br />however, there is no information on <br />sure of the condition of those sewer <br />sure they should be responsible for sE <br />ao-ora cTi 'l l moot a ll rann i rAman t c_ Mr. <br />ate water pressure and voliune in the area, <br />.s far as the circulating main is concerned <br />submitted and a circulating main might be <br />11 be complied with in the final plans. In <br />e is no information as to the infiltration <br />sewers and the developer does not consider <br />t in flow monitors, and the City ha,s no <br />all of them are in locations in accordance <br />the City cannot move them at this time. <br />stated that he believed that the existing <br />rea and believed that there would be less <br />be created by a single family development, <br />the infiltration and inflow and no one is <br />;. It is their position that they are not <br />wers outside their development area. Their <br />ThnmaS qratPd that if an area is zoned for <br />a certain type of development, then the City is obligated to make certain that <br />its infrastructure can support that type of zoning or development, and this area <br />is presently zoned Single Family where there would be more volume in the sewer <br />district. He believed that the master plan should make note of that as they come <br />up with zoning recommendations and should make sure that the infrastructure would <br />support any area proposed for rezoning. He agreed that this should not be Shore <br />West's responsibility. Mr. Orlowski suggested that they should have some testing <br />done. Mr. Thomas questioned what the Engineering Department would be able to do. <br />Mr. I?eichmann explained that some sanitary sewer rehabilitation was being done <br />upstream from this development and tha.t should have a noticeable impact on this <br />particular line. In reference to the construction road, Mr. Bower pointed out a <br />tentative route where they could install a+,a±-I- road for construction equipment <br />on the site. Mr. Dubelko advised that tmder the cluster code once the development <br />plans are approved, the Comcnission should recomnend the rezoning to Council. He <br />suggested that the Architectural Board should review the proposal again and then <br />it should come back to the Commission. Mr. Thomas questioned what -would be <br />accomplished by this proposal being returned to the Commission, unless there are <br />actual planning issues to be discussed. If only the buffering and colors are <br />involved, these should be reviewed again by the Architectural Board, if there is <br />a problem with the sewers this is the Engineering Department's responsibility. He <br />maintained that all of the Planning Commission issues have been reviewed in the <br />past four meetings. Mr. Dubelko stated that the Architectural Board does review <br />and make recommendations to the Commission, and there have been few instances <br />where a proposal does not return to the Commission. Mr. Skoulis pointed out that <br />this was only sent to the Architectural Board for a preliminary review. Mr. <br />Gorris agreed stating that they had requested some additional information and <br />that the Law Department still had to review the covenants which have been <br />presented to them in compliance with section 1126.12(b), but since all of the <br />ma.jor concerns have been addressed forwarding it to Council would be a <br />possibility. Mr. Bowen pointed that, in the past, items had been forwarded <br />directly to Council from Architectural Review Board, and Mrs. Hughes questioned <br />why the Commission would need this back since it has been reviewed four times, <br />unless the Architectural Board had a major problem with the proposal. Mr. Skoulis <br />believed that, since this is the first time that the Comnission had reviewed a <br />single family cluster development, they had to be sure that nothing was <br />overlooked. He questioned if the Conunission is supposed to review the covenants, <br />restrictions, easements that have been submitted to the Law Department. Mr. <br />Dubelko stated that he and the Law Director have read through the covenants and <br />3 <br /> <br />? ?