02/11/1992 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

? would like a11 the other departments to review the preliminary plans, seconded by A. Skoulis, and unanimously approved. 2) Butternut Ridge Apartments, 5618 to 5800 Great Northern Blvd. Revisions to previously approvecl plans. Chairman Gorris advised that this proposal was originally approved in June of 1991. Mr. M. Gavin; attorney, stated that since that this project of 260 units with an investment of 16 million dollars was abruptly stopped, some serious financial problems have resulted. He stated that Mr. Neff, the engineer, will explain why some modifieations were made to the site plan, and Mr. Furman, the architect, will address the architectural modifications. He pointed out that no part of the development that is proceeding now is in violation of the code. There were two reasons these changes were made. First, the property line along Great Northern Boulevard is not where it was first envisioned and correcting the location of the property line gave the appearance that the building was moved. Secondly, since it ha.d been necessary to widen some roads and turns to improve fire vehicle access some minor changes had to be made to the location of some streets and parking areas, thus necessitating moving some of the buildings slightly. He maintained these changes were not really ma,jor, the buildings are basically the same. Mr. Neff presented the original plan which was approved by the Commission (prior to his company being hired) and a plan showing the original property line in red. While they were developing the final plans it was discovered that the property line along Great Northern Boulevard was was not in the location where it was originally thought to be. The building was not moved, the property line was not as originally shown, but the setbacks still conform to code. Nothing else has been changed, density, acreage, etc. will rema.in as originally stated. He advised that final docunents are not prepared prior to preliminary approval. Mr. Orlowski questioned if they were preparing drawings for each phase of the development. Mr. Neff responded that once preliminary approval was received, they were contraeted to prepare all the final drawings, there is to be no phase construction, and all working documents were submitted to the Building, Engineering, and Fire Departments. All permits were received prior to starting work. Mr. Orlowski questioned how this modification will effect the open retention system. Mr. Neff explained that he has worked closely with City Engineer Deichmarm and had used the template that the City uses to check turning radii for energency vehicles and that was why some areas had to be widened. Al1 information-was submitted and approved before starting work. The detention basin will be in the setback, but it is a very attractive feature with brick walls, tiers, and a water fall used for aeration. In response to questions he advised, that all setbacks conform to code, that sidewalks will be installed withi.n the Great Northern right-of-way; that all the drawings had been approved by the Citya Mr. Tallon questioned why, when this error was d.iscovered, did they not come ba.ck to the Commission. Mr. Neff stated that these drawings had been submitted and approved by the Building and Engineering Departments. Mr. Orlowski stated that when the plan was presented, the Commission was advised tha.t all turning radii would accommodate emergency vehicles. The drawings presented to the Commission detailing the numerous changes did not provide in-depth information proving to the safety.forces that fire apparatus turning radius was capable. Especially the change in configuration at the western end of the development. Mr. Gavin stated that if they had realized the extent of the changes, they probably would have gone back to the Commission, but because they were working with the Building Department and the plans were modified because of a safety issues and a mistake, they apparently did not think it was necessary. Mr. Neff clarified that no work 4