Laserfiche WebLink
Excerpts from Plan Commission Minutes of July 1,2010 continued: <br /> been asked to review the consultant's work and give his opinions. Mr. Cochran stated Blank, <br /> Wesselink and Cook are excellent engineers and do significant work in the area. <br /> Mr. Cochran said one of the most sensitive things that he addresses in a planned development is storm <br /> drainage. Mr. Cochran understands the adjoining property owner's concerns. <br /> Mr. Cochran said the first site plan that was submitted exceeded the requirements of the City. Mr. <br /> Cochran met with Mr. Dean and the discussion was to reduce the release rate. The volume of the <br /> detention pond has been increased and the release rate was reduced to 3.3 CFS which is close to half of <br /> what is allowed by the City. The calculations for the detention pond volume and reduced rate of runoff <br /> meet and far exceed the requirements of the City and will provide significant protection to the <br /> downstream properties. <br /> Mr. Guy Casey was sworn in by Mrs. Poland. <br /> Mr. Casey said no significant changes have been made from the first proposal. They have made some <br /> changes to the entryway that IDOT has not approved. They only have three (3) degrees more than you <br /> would turning into a residential driveway on a major four (4) lane highway. This will cause problems. <br /> IDOT will not approve this. There is a corridor that has developed between Ruby Tuesday's and <br /> Maryland. This is used by vehicles trying to avoid traffic lights. This new road they are proposing <br /> will eliminate vehicles using the light at Aldi Drive at Route 121. This will be developing a new <br /> highway and is an invitation to a disaster. <br /> Mr. Casey said the buffer yard the developer is asking you to approve is deficient. The developers do <br /> not have enough space; they are trying to put too much on too little property. This plan is in complete <br /> violation of the City's Zoning Ordinance. This is an overuse of the site. <br /> Mr. Casey said it is a misstatement when staff said they do not expect much affect on Route 121. A <br /> stoplight is needed to access Route 121. <br /> Mr. Casey appreciates that Mr. Horve and Mr. Dean are working on the drainage problems with the <br /> property owners. The other issue is the loss of property values if this is approved. This will have a <br /> drastic affect. This development does not fit the demographics. Mr. Casey said his house will set one <br /> hundred and fifty (150) feet from the proposed three (3) story building. This is a unique area, stately <br /> looking and you will be destroying the area if approved. This is not compatible and does not fit. <br /> Mr. Edwards asked if the fact that this is a planned development change the necessity for setbacks, etc. <br /> Mr. Crowe said not by itself as a planned development but they do allow for City Council to approve <br /> site specific plans that can vary from the requirements. Staff did take into consideration the dumpster <br /> and the delivery lane located on the south side of the building. The buffer yard that is provided is not <br /> thirty-five (35) feet wide at that particular location. The reason staff is still recommending approval is <br /> because of the significant amount of landscaping that is being provided in the buffer yard. Staff has <br /> mentioned before if this property was a straight B-2 Commercial District and a buffer yard would not <br /> be required for this district, only when adjacent to R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-5 zoning districts. This is a <br /> requirement for City zoning districts, not along county zoning districts. This is another reason staff is <br /> recommending a PD for this site. <br /> Mr. Casey stated the developers want to put the dumpster right next to his property. This dumpster is <br /> evading the green area that the City Ordinance says he is entitled to. He said staff says he is not <br /> entitled to protection because he is in the county but that is not what the Zoning Ordinance says. The <br /> Ordinance says any R-1, not City or county, but any R-1. This is almost discrimination. All of us <br /> deserve protection for our principal investments. All of this development is in violation. This is an <br />