08/09/2005 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

concrete street, gutters, and curbs with a 2 inch overlay of asphalt over the entire street atop the concrete street. Mr. Urbanick indicated that the intent is to have a concrete curb section about 30 inches wide which is a curb and gutter section on either side of the road sandwiched between that would be a base per city engineering requirements. It is an adjusted design, approximately 6 inches of concrete with 3 3/4 inches with asphalt over that. If less than 3 3/4 inches of asphalt is put on, then it would have a tendency to buckle and break-up quicker. So that is what they are proposing as that is the thicker asphalt section on top of a 5-inch concrete base. Mrs. Bacik commended the Commission for asking a lot of questions and questioned why after a year the applicants had not submitted detailed plans showing what would be done. Mr. Koeth indicated that there had been postponements by the applicant and the Commission is still scrutinizing plans. Mr. Hadsell lived to the east of the development for 40 years and suggested the property was wet for 6 months out of the year and questioned if the homes would be higher then his land. He has been along the back section of the lot which is a swamp and suggested it did not drain into the existing ditch. He asked that the Commission take the standing water into consideration. Ms. Dorn indicated that the neighbors had not seen any adjustments that may have been made and questioned if the units were doubled up and the density of the project had changed. Ms. Wenger reviewed that the units were still 15-feet.apart, but now there are more double units than single units. There were 8 singles and now there are only 4 single units. Mr: Bacik reviewed that he was in the drafting business and never in those years did he ever give a client incomplete plans and expect the client to accept things to be changed after the fact. The - current drawings take a lot of guess work to know what the applicants are proposing. He did not see the existing area which was to remain a natural buffer between the condos and the site. The issue was addressed in the first three meetings and there was to be a 20 to 25 foot area which would remain in a natural state by the creek. He questioned if the trees were still in place and would stay in place as it is no longer shown on the current drawings. Mr. O'Malley advised that sheet 8 of 17 which was a tree preservation removal plan submitted by the applicants showed the strip of land in which Mr. Bacik was referencing is along the northeast axea. He advised that as the site was riot zoned commercial, permits for tree removal were not required. The site utilities can not co-exists with trees, so if there is going to be any trees saved on the site it is entirely within the Planning Comtnission's purview to address the issue now to ensure the nature and character of the neighborhood that the commission is approving. He suggested perhaps that was the reason for the tree preservation plan which was submitted. Mr. Bacik commented that he had a set of plans at home showing that the buffer area would be existing trees not mounds as shown on the resent plans. Mr. Yager believed that the Commission requested the applicants maintain what is there. Mr. Urbanick indicated that they would need to run the utilities but a 20 foot span would remain in its natural state. They agree that a natural buffer area should be maintained for privacy of both sites. Mr. Yager suggested prior to the start of the utility layout the applicants mark the trees that should not be removed. Mr. Urbanick indicated that some of the scrap would be removed but what they would do is establish a non- disturb line, which would be marked off prior to any utility work starting. Mr. O'Malley advised that a tree preservation or survey plan overlaying the utility plan needed to be on the site improvement plans so there are no misunderstandings as to what trees go and what are to stay.