Laserfiche WebLink
Plan Commission Excerpts -Page Three <br /> Mr. Shampine questioned paving of the property. Mr. Cochran stated that the property will not <br /> be entirely paved. A fence is proposed on the west property line but not on top of the berm. <br /> There has been no commitment regarding business hours. There would be loading on one side of <br /> the facility and unloading on the other side. <br /> Mr. Schiller noted that access was not permitted on Mound Road by IDOT for a similar proposal. <br /> Mr. Cochran stated that there is access to Mound Road from the remaining tract to the north; <br /> questions regarding vehicular access would need to be addressed when development occurs. <br /> Nir. Shampine questioned the lighting. Mr. Cochran stated that there will be two shifts with <br /> lighting of the facility directed away from the residential area. There will not be a large storage <br /> area. There will be a parking lot for employees. <br /> Mrs. Lisa Lee, 3336 Chat Drive, was present and expressed concern regarding drainage on the <br /> west side of the development. She stated that there are already serious water problems. Mr. <br /> Cochran stated that the site plan has not been completed. The berm will prevent the water flow <br /> onto the properly and will direct it to the retention area. <br /> Mr. Shampine stated that he had voted against the previous petition for this type of operation due <br /> to many of the same concerns. Without a planned unit development, Mr. Shampine stated that it <br /> is difficult to act on the petition. He noted that it is a nuisance to have the trucks idling at a11 <br /> hours. Mr. Swartz stated that with the loading and unloading only and no long term storage of <br /> trucks, it would be unlikely that there would be continuous idling. <br /> Mr. Schiller stated that the issue is whether or not M-1 is appropriate zoning for the property and <br /> not the particulaz use of the property. Mrs. Morthland stated that is correct and the Commission <br /> should stay away from terms of conditional zoning. <br /> Mr. Setina questioned coverage of the berm. Mr. Cochran stated that it would be grass with <br /> plants and trees. Mr. Setina noted that the trees will provide sight and sound barriers. <br /> Mrs. Washington stated that the more expensive homes are closest to this development and stated <br /> that if the development is not an attribute to the neighborhood then the homes will lose value. <br /> Mr. Swartz stated that nearby property is zoned M-2 and can be developed as such. He stated <br /> that this proposal allows more of a safeguard. <br /> Mr. Lee questioned if petitioner must abide by the stated requirements if the petition is approved. <br /> Mr. Swartz stated that the requirements are part of an annexation agreement which the petitioner <br /> and developer must abide by. Land to the east of the vacant lots in Meadowlark Addition is <br /> zoned M-2 and could be developed in a much less positive scenario. <br />