01/25/2005 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Joe Urbanick came forward and said the 2' could be picked up by putting the sidewalk on the other side of the driveway, continuous to the roadway, so it would conform to 25'. There is a 2' tree lawn across the street from these lots which could be eliminated to accommodate the additional2' and move the road over, so no variance would be required. Mr. Conway informed the Board that if they preferred to let the 23' go though and leave the grass area in the front, this could be recommended to Council. Mr. Koeth and Mrs. Hoff-Smith both agreed they like having the tree lawn. Mr. Urbanick said that most of the issues have been addressed except the street lighting. The builder has decided to withdraw the entire concept of the mail box lights. The street light design is in process and the applicant will submit it to the Building Department when completed. The curbs, manhole relocation, concrete roadway have all been addressed in today's plan. Lighting is the only open item and will be dictated by your inputs on the lamps that are provided by CEI. Mr. Koeth asked the applicant if they had seen the letter from the engineering department indicating that the French Creek culvert type be revised from a corrugated steel pipe to a reinforced concrete box culvert. Ms. Wenger felt that this is not a Planning Commission issue, however, Mr. O'Malley desired that the Planning Commission address it. Mr. Koeth said that the engineering department requests that it be revised. Mr. O'Malley feels the engineering department is seeking the Planning Commission's support on this recommendation, since the subdivision standards don't apply to a cluster zone and since the cluster that is being requested is a rezoning based upon certain conditions whether it is sidewalks, lighting or the installation of utilities. The engineer is concerned about the nature of this culvert, how much water it carries, and the materials that are being used to construct it. Mr. Yager said that the Comrnission members are not experts in the water retention and water control devices. For them to determine if inetal or concrete is to be used is an issue beyond the Commission's expertise. Mrs. Hoff- Smith said normally the Board follows engineering's recommendations. Ms. Wenger said that the current site plan and landscape plan conflicted, as landscape areas were shown in proposed detention areas. The approved landscape plan shows a different site plan underneath that create some confusion as to which is the approved site plan. The applicant said it is two different site plans. Mr. Yager asked Mr.Urbanick if he is showing retention basins and no underground detention on the most recent stamped drawings that were submitted. Mr. Urbanick said that the detention is partially underground and partially above ground. Mr. Yager asked the Engineering Department if fencing needs to be installed around the basin. Ms. Wenger said Cathy Becker said fencing would not be necessary and plantings could be used where there are no slopes. The landscaping could be relocated to the top of the swale. In discussing the culvert, Mr. O'Malley said the cluster district refers to the improvement requirements in the subdivision regulations. He said it may be possible that the engineer has authority under the subdivision regulations to compel culverts that are boxed in concrete, rather than steel, but he may not have that specific designation. He had the impression that he wasn't sure that he had a specific requirement for concrete but that he preferred it. He thought concrete