02/14/1996 P&Z Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

SENT 151 : HL I li ENV & LAND MIiM l : 2- l :i - Jb : l U ::ibAM : 2. Outdoor Recreational Facilities WASYl1NL1UN LVUN11-, page 2, Planning and Zoning Board 464 4566:# 2/ 2 We believe the proposed outdoor recreational facilities are too extensive for a A/fiddle School Facility. Because of this, we question what the use of these facilities will be. Will these facilities be available to the Park District for use and for other schools (ie. the High School) in the Centennial School District? Will the use of' these facilities be compatible with the adjacent residential uses? Our concern is that the facilities proposed go far beyond Middle School use. The additional use of these facilities by other groups or organizations may be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood. The use of the facilities by high school students brings mici in another age group we were not anticipating. In addition, the use of the facilities by leagues brings in activities on hours outside of the designated school hours and after school activities. Outdoor recreational facilities are a source of traffic, noise and lighting. If these facilities will be used more intensely than the normal Middle School use, we would like to see some conditions restricting the hours and lighting. 3. Vegetation Removal/Landscape Screening We believe the site contains a woodlot behind the houses located on Elm Street. This existing vegetation is not shown on the site plan. With the proposed outdoor recreational facilities, it appears that this vegetation will be removed. We would urge the School District to retain as much as these woods as possible (again -are all those fields necessary). Woodlots are a benefit to the urban environment. They provide wildlife habitat and aid in energy conservation. It would be nice if they were retained as a natural environment study area for the students. Along Elm Street there is an existing row of mature evergreen trees. It is unclear if these trees will remain. This existing tree line will provide a good screen of the school and it's facilities from Elm Street. We would oppose any removal of these trees. If removed, we would like to see screening consisting of berm intermixed with evergreen and deciduous plantings. 4. Signage To reduce the impact on our neighborhood we would prefer an unlit ground sign if one is proposed on Elm Street. We would oppose any lighting of the sign. These are our main concerns. We do have others regarding grading/drainage, wetland replacement and the construction schedule which I am sure will be answered at the hearing. I hope you will consider these issues in your final decision. 041cpseciai4-1 The Nordines