Laserfiche WebLink
..?-:/ t'-• ? ? <br />considerably, could ca.use serious problems. He recommended a 1 foot grade change <br />and 1,200 square feet should be the maximum. He suggested that the Conwission <br />allow a developer or individual to come to one meeting to present an informal <br />sketch or plan showing wha.t they would like to develop on a plot of land. At this <br />meeting the Commission eould interpolate whether they believe that the developer <br />has a plan that would be viable for the city. After that architectural plans <br />should be required. This would help the small developer and it would eliminate <br />some problems. Mr. Thomas believed that whenever a proposal is presented which <br />ha.s to go for a variance finished architectural drawings have to be accurate. If <br />the Commission does not work an accurate drawings, such as in accurate placements <br />of ingress or egress drives or inaccurate placements of contiguous driveways, and <br />if the Board of Zoning Appeals grants a variance tiased on inaccurate plans as <br />ha.ppened recently and as has happened in the past, they cannot make a good <br />judgement. Neither can the Commission make recommendations to the Board of Zoning <br />Appeals without accurate drawings and it is not up to the city to interpret if a <br />plan is accurate. r1rs. 0'Rourke pointed out that the Ice Cream Parlor came in 4 <br />times with inaccurate drawings wliich is a waste of time. Mr. Thomas stated that <br />there have been times when.developers have come in with a rough sketch in order <br />to go onto the next step, however in most cases these were areas where total <br />accuracy was not necessary. But whenever a development comes in tha.t has a <br />dramatic impaet on traffic or on contiguous parcels and pedestrian walkways, <br />these plans have to be accurate. Mrs. 0'Rourke stated that a developer would have <br />to pay for an accurate drawing at some point, so it might as well be in the <br />beginning. Mr. Thomas stated that as lon,g as he is on the board he wi]1. not vote <br />for a recommendation for a variance an a plan that is not aceurate if it ha.s a <br />strong effect on traffic or ingress or egress. Mr. Orlowski stated that the only <br />way to verify that a plan is accurate is to have one stamped by an engineer or <br />architect. Building Commissioner Conway pointed out that'the engineer missed the <br />front setback on Butternut Ridge by 30 feet. Mr. Thomas stated that at least, in <br />that case; the responsibility is the engineer's. Mr. Orlowski explained to Mr. <br />Conway, who had been out of the room, tha.t he would like a stipulation in writing <br />that a developer could come before the Commission at one meeting to present an <br />informal sketch or plan for input from the Commission. At that time the <br />Conunission can always determine tha.t a really smdll development did not need <br />axchitectural plans. Mr. Conway had no objection to that. PZr. Orlowski would like <br />that included in writing on these instructions. Mr. Conway was concerned about <br />putting it in writing, since there are many people who get no further than <br />talking to him, if this were common lmowledge all these people with unworkable <br />i.deas would want to go before the Commission. Mr. Thoma.s believed that once a <br />developer had passed Mr. Conway's criteria, the informal plans could be passed <br />on to the Comission. Mr. Orlowski would like some statement that requires <br />architectural plans. Mr. Conway noted that the plans that presented a problem was <br />not the on-site.drawing, but the way the drives on adjacent property and the <br />roads were depicted. Mr. OrTowski believed that the whole thing was partially <br />accurate. It was decided to leave the Instructions for Filing as is. It was <br />determined tha.t there is no charge for the Planning Commission submittal. Mr. <br />Conway stated that he would ha.ve no problem with charging a fee to cover the cost <br />of his department's review. The members believed that $50.00 would be reasona.ble <br />for a submittal of plans. Mayor Boyle agreed. It was clarified that the 12;000 <br />square foot requirement and the 2 foot grade change was for- the submittal of <br />drainage plans, not the requirement for architectural plans. It was decided to <br />leave this as is. <br />V. GOMMUNICATIONS: (Heard at this point.) <br />A letter was received from Shore West Construction objecting to the proposed <br />7