5/18/1977 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

THE DOT WILL NOT EXPAND THE OUTFALL DITCHES AND THAT THERE IS A SERIOUS RUN-OFF PROBLEM. HE FURTHER NOTED THAT THE MALL DOES NOT REQUIRE A SITE PLAN REVIEW, AND THE DRAINAGE PROBLEM MUST BE SOLVED. MR. ANDERSON STATED THAT THEY ARE ALLOWING FOR A 1" RETENTION ON SITE. WHICH NO OTHER COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENT. IN THE AREA DOES. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT STATED THAT HE JUST WISHED THE DEVELOPER TO BE PUT ON NOTICE -THAT THESE PROBLEMS EXIST AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED. HE POINTED OUT THAT IF THERE IS NOT ADEQUATE PARKING, A VARIANCE OR POSSIBLY A NEW ORDINANCE WILL BE NECESSARY. DON ADAMS, BUILDING DIRECTOR, NOTED THAT HE HAD THROWN UP A RED FLAG IN REGARD TO THIS SITUATION BEFORE AND IS NOW AT THE POINT OF ISSUING A BUILDING PERMIT. HE STATED THAT THE PERMIT WOULD BE ISSUED ONLY ON A RETAIL SALES BASIS FOR THE ENTIRE MALL, AND IT COULD HAPPEN THAT TREY COULD HAVE A COMPLETED BUILDING AND NO OCCUPANCY PERMIT.IF THEY SHOULD PUT IN A MORRISON`S WITHOUT THE PROPER NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES. ADMINISTRATOR ,KENNINGS INFORMED THE BOARD THAT A YEAR OF TWO AGO THE DOT SENT A LETTER REQUESTING THAT ANY PROJECTS OF THIS KIND IN THAT AREA BE REVIEWED BY THEM,AND HE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE Az,LETTER S.HOWIN_G,.THAT THE DOT WAS CONSULTED, DON ADAMS INDICATED THAT HE HAS A LETTER FROM COUNTY PLANNER BRENNAN INDICATING THAT THE PLAN WAS APPROVED BY DOT WITH RESPECT TO DRAINAGE, BUT THE ADMINISTRATOR FELT WE SHOULD HAVE AN ACTUAL LETTER FROM THE DOT. CHAIRMAN WODTKE INSTRUCTED THE ADMINISTRATOR TO CONTACT THE DOT AND REQUEST A LETTER FROM THEM APPROVING THE RUN-OFF, COMMISSIONER SCHMUCKER STATED HE DID NOT FEEL A BUILDING PERMIT SHOULD BE REFUSED AS LONG AS IT IS ISSUED FOR RETAIL SALES ONLY, BUT AGREED THAT THE PROBLEM IN REGARD TO MORRISON'S CAFETERIA SHOULD BE POINTED OUT TO THE DEVELOPER, BUILDING DIRECTOR ADAMS SUGGESTED THE BOARD CHECK THE COUNTY ORDINANCE RE PARKING REQUIREMENTS., NOTING THAT A FOOD ESTABLISHMENT DOES NOT QUALIFY AS A RETAIL ESTABLISHMENT. HE ALSO NOTED THAT THE WORDING IN THE CITY'S ORDINANCE DOES NOT DEAL WITH CHANGE OF OCCUPANCY AS RELATED TO PARKING REQUIREMENTS, 16 MAY I$1917 rro�?� ;