Laserfiche WebLink
.? • <br />proposal meets the code or has any adverse impact or areas of concern as stated <br />in Chapter 1126; if no adverse impact is found, the Commission can only do <br />whatever is needed to cxeate less of an impact on -the adjacent neighbors. It is <br />not up to the developer to change a proposal to help the City enforce the code, <br />and if there is an illegal use later on; the City would have to have to remedy <br />it. If this building does create an impact on the residents, the Commission can <br />request buffering. Mr. Skoulis believed that there should be some screening or <br />buffering for the neighbors propertya.Mrs. Harrington and Mrs. Wiersma, residents <br />on Barton Road, had several concerns: this building could become a bar in the <br />future; the existing barn was to be used for storage originally; that the <br />dumpster was never moved as origi:nally required; 8 foot fence along the rear line <br />was never finished; and trees would not buffer the storage building because of <br />the grade difference. Mr. Hayden explained that he ran the fence up to Mrs. <br />Harrington's rose bushes which extend 8 feet onto his property, but did not want <br />to cut them down. Building Commissioner Conway will pursue completing the fence. <br />Ms. Wiersma suggested using the large maintenance building on the property now <br />for storage and building.. a residential type. garage to store the maintenance <br />equipment. She was mainly concerned about the.future use of this building and the <br />fact that he has not completed what was agreed ono Mr. Tallon stated that the <br />Commission could not rule on future use, only on the existing ordinances, and it <br />would be up to the Buildi.ng Department to police it. Mr. Dubelko suggested that <br />this proposal be treated as though it were going to be used for retail, in case <br />. later on, it was converted to a.retail use. Mr. Conway advised that there is not <br />. enough parking to support this as a retail building now, there is enough land to <br />? add the required parkingv In response to Mr. Acciarri's statement that this <br /> building would not be suitable for retail because of its location, the members <br /> mentioned several other areas that were located a distance from the road. Mr. <br />? Acciarri stated that the letter tha.t was submitted puts them on record that tYiis <br />. a building is to be used only for storage. Mr. Wiersma and Mrs. Harrington both <br /> complained about the noise level when the dumpster is emptied and questioned why <br />? the dumpster was not relocated as originally required. Mr. Conway advised that <br />-? this had .come back as a minor change along with the request to leave the 3rd <br />_ driveway open. The Commission denied .the request to keep the 3rd drive but <br />' approved the request not to move the dtmpster. He stated tha.t the noise when the <br />? dumpster is closed would exceed-the decibel reading allowed, but the hours for <br />emptying dumpsters are regulated. Tt was pointed out that when the original <br />?-? request was made for a 2,400 square foot building, they had agreed to reduce it <br />to 1,800 square feet. It was agreed that this must be treated as a retail <br />building and a plan must be presented showing the number'of parking spaces (which <br />may be landbanked) necessary to support.this as a retail building. Members were <br />concerned that this might necessitate moving the building closer to the <br />residents, and also might make it easier to use it as retail. Mr. Dubelko did not <br />believe that the builcling would ha.ve to lie moved, but thought that the Commission <br />could give the residents more protection in the future, if the parking was <br />approved now. If the building were to be moved back some of the trees-might have <br />to be removed. Mr. Thomas suggested a plan be submitted showing the building at <br />the present location with the landbanked parking spaces. Mre Dubelko stated that <br />if this plan is approved and someone later comes in with another parking plan <br />closer than 50 feet to the adjacent residence, the Commission can refuse it on <br />the basis that a plan had been approved previously. Mr. Thomas stated that he was <br />going to make a motion based on Mr. Dubelko's suggestion that the Commission Plan <br />for the worst possible situation that this gentlemen might sell his property to <br />some disreputable figure who planned to use the back building for retail. J. <br />Thomas moved that the developer return with revised plans showing landbanked <br />4