05/25/1993 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

especially since there is no way to install a dead bolt lock on the double entry doors on the porch.. He would also like a storm water retention pond in the second phase of the Golf home area. This pond will be_about 9 to 10 feet deep, the same as those i.n the first phase. Build.ing_Commissioner Conway advised that fences wouTd be required around all the ponds, even those on the golf course, imless he received a variance from the Board of Building Code Appeals. He too is concerned about the pond in the Vista Homes, but does not believe a fence should be needed on the golf course. In response to questions, City Engineer Deichmarm advised that there is a relatively goad slope in the ponds with no real sha.llow area. lZr. Thomas suggested some kind of screening with landscaping, rocks or stones to prevent access into the pond in the Vista homes so that it would still be attractive since it is in the common area behind the homes. Mr. Bower stated that the Vista pond ha.d a very gradual slope and aeration is planned. He further explained the type of buyers and the cost of the various units. In reference to the second floor porch, the members agreed that it could be eliminated and but it should be offered as an option for buyers who would want one. Mr. Gorris would like the water screening addressed on any pond that is not a golf course feature. Mr. Thomas believed that the fence arourid the Butternut Apartments pond was extremely attractive in that situation, but this pond is in a comnon area, and a fence would prevent sharing it. He again suggested using landscape features to. make it safer. N?r. Conway stated tha.t the.developer could present an alternate to the required fencin; to the Board of Building.Code Appeals. Mr. Bower agreed to look into something else and clarifieel that the Vista pond was an architectural feature, not a retention pond, and is the only one that will be aerated, the others ponds are deeper and will drain. In reference to the changes that were presented previously, Mr. Conway explained that these changes can be addressed by the Commission imder the code, and do not have to be forwarded to Council, if the members believe that the changes are still within the intent of the design. Mr. Skoulis agreed that these changes could be approved, but believed the stairways should be an option. Mr. Bower explained some other ehanges tha.t were made during the platting for the width of the pavement, the cul-de-sacs, etc. The members had studied that information earlier and had no objection to the changes. B. Gorris moved to accept the ehanges to the View Point development of Shore West as indicated in the letter from Mr. Conway dated February 8, 1993 and was elaborated on tonight. We further recommend to perrlit the builder to eliminate the necessity of having the second story access for the Vista homes, but it should be available as an option to anyone who may want it. The Commission requests tha.t the developer pay particular attention to how he might address the safety relating to the water features without losing aesthetic value, seconded by J. Thorias, and unanimously approved. Regarding Nightfall, Mr. Gornaay noted that the architect had advised that it is a viable project, but if it is not started by the end of May, he will contact the Law Department regarding the next step. Mr. Thomas suggested that the parking under the trees be restricted. This must be reviewed by the Law Department. Rally's has applied for a building permit. Wal T7art will return to the Board, probably in July, but plans have not been submitted. T1r. Gorris would like to see the plans prior to their presentation. The Planning Commission will take August as a vacation month. IX. ADJOURNMIINT: B. Gflrris moved to excuse the absence of Mr. Tallon, seconded by J. Thomas, and unanimously approved. The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. ? B. Gorris, C B.