05/12/1998 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

? on the discussion. Mr. Tallon questioned where the empty pallet's would start. Mr. Scherry advised there is a screen wall that comes out from the loading dock and the pallets would be stored in the crevice behind the loading dock. The agreement.with the carriers is that for every pallet that is put in one must be taken back out. Mr. Tallon explained in the past, due to the fact it can get real messy with the pallets, they have required developers to store pallets inside the gates of the outdoor facility or the Nursery area. Mr. Barrow noted he could install a small fenced area adjacent to the wall for pallet storage. The commission asked that this be screened appropriately so that the pallets cannot be seen from the outside. The developer agreed to comply with this request. Ms. Kenzig questioned if the enaployees would park behind the building. Mr. Barrow stated the parking in the back could be used for employee parking if required. Mr. Platt verified there is not any requirement that employees park in the rear. He noted most of the employees will park in the front because they have to punch out near the front of the building. Mr. Brennan added that loitering in the back of the build.ing should also be prohibited. Ms. Oring noted several months back the developer agreed to bury all power lines under ground and questioned if the power poles were temporary. Mr. Barrow advised the poles were temporarily relocated to keep the existing tenants in operation while construction was ongoing. He stated there is a line that provides power to the condominiwns which will not be touched, but agreed all lines that provide power to the shopping center at the rear of the buildiug will be underground and all services to the transformers will also be underground upon completion of this project. Ms. Doubler questioned if the developer could construct a debris catching fence, similar to what planning commission recommended for Cinnamon Woods, as the chain link fence is not doing the job of catching the debris. Mr. Tallon suggested that the developer purchase a mesh netting for the chain link, as this is inexpensive, yet it helps prevent smaller materials from blowing through the fence. Mr. Brennan questioned if the association has received any complaints concerning the chain link fence. Ms. Doubler responded, although she was unsure any complaints were received, due to the rainy weather lately the amount of dust has been minute. She believed the coinplaints will pick up during the suinmer months when the land is drier. Mr. Tallon advised, when he last visited the site, he noticed some dust clouds and questioned if there is a spray truck available dusing construction. Mr. Scherry noted hosing down and controlling the dust is part of the requirements in their construction manual. There were no fiuther questions. T. Brennan moved to refer Developers Diversified Realty Corp. (Home, Depot): Great Northem Shopping Ctr., a proposal to receive approval of the new store front to the architectural review board May 20, 1998 at 5:30 P.M. (the clerk provided the developer with a list of what will be needed for architectural review board and advised notification is not requ.ired for that meeting), the proposal will be required to return to planning commission on May 26, 1998 at 7:30 P.M. at which time the following is requested: all color material samples, especially the orange; there will be no stocking of the pallets outside; and there should be full shield wall packs on the rear building lights. In addition Mr. Brennan noted he would recommend the elimination of any orange on the back of the structure and there was some concem about the orange on the front which hopefully architectural review board can provide a recommendation on that regard. Mr. Brennan also requested input from architectural review board on the steel, or what was at one time considered an overhang. Per a request from one of the residents, Mr. Brennan requested that the city double check the turniug radius to make sure it complies with any setback rules. The motion was seconded by R. Koeth and unanimously approved. Mrs. Doubler advised she did not recall seeing this turning radius on previous plans. Mr. Barrow advised that has always been shown on the plans. Mr. Brennan clarified the tuniing radius will be referred to the proper department to determine if it complies with setback requirements. In the framing of the motion, Mrs. O'Rourke 10