05-11-88 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES City Council May 11, 1988 Center•ville too long. Road Ar•ea (Cont.) Sanders felt the distance was not uncommon with other• ballfield developments. Blesener pointed out that it might be better~ fr•om the neighbor~hood's point of view to have the ballfields located in the center• of the par~k to pr•otect r•esidents. Sander~s r~epor•ted that the ballfield system as pr~oposed wor•ks well for• softball, but not baseball. Sander~s suggested that one of the fields might be set aside for• development as a baseball field. Fahey agr•eed that the City wanted to accommodate Little League play on some of the fields. Sanders reviewed Alternate 3 which encompasses29.9 acres. There are 3 ballfields pr•oposed with r•oom for• expansion to a 4th field. The pr•oposal i ncl udes a 94 car• par•ki ng 1 ot. The bi g di ffer~ence i n the developments encompassing 29.9 acr•es and 33.88 acr•es is the buffer• ar•ea. The smaller• acr•eage pr~ovides 65 or 80 foot buffers while the lar•ger provides 110 and 160 foot buffer•s. Sander•s r•epor~ted that ther•e i s an exi sti ng pond on the pr•oper•ty and it may be mor•e economical to wor~k with the location of the existing pond than to tr~y to r~elocate the pond to the nor•theast cor•ner~ wher•e it is shown on the concept dr•awings. Scalze pointed out that moving the pond southward would eliminate the possibility of expansion of an additional ballfield. The City Engineer~ r•epor•ted that the pond could be relocated and this wor•k incor•por•ated as par~t of the gr•ading plan for~ the site. Sander~s then r•eviewed Alter•native 4 which includes 33.88 acr~es and has an 80 foot buffer• zone on the nor~th and 110 foot buffer• on the south. Alternative 5 was r~eviewed which consists of 29.9 acr~es and has a 50 foot buffer• on the south and 40 foot on the nor•th. Sander~s felt the 29.9 acr•es becomes too restrictive. Sander~s also pointed out that ther~e is a drainage pr•oblem on the site and the pr•oper•ty will need to be gr~aded proper•ly and swales installed to alleviate drainage problems. The extr•a acreage would be beneficial from this standpoint. LaValle pointed out that while Alternative 5 pr~ovides a 40 foot buffer~ on the nor•th ther•e woul d al so be the setback for~ the i ndustr•i al pr~oper•ty to the nor•th to consi der•. Sander•s r•epor•ted that a 20 foot setback i s r~equi r•ed of i ndustr~i al development bor•der•ing another• industr~ial development, and 40 foot setback is required when industrial borders residential. Sanders assumed a 40 foot setback woul d be r•equi r~ed of the i ndustr•i al pr•oper•ty to the nor•th. Page -4-