PL MINUTES 11191985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-6_ 1 He said the provision of brick and windows in the addition would give a sense of 2 warmth to the building and_an aesthetic view from the adjacent resident's property. 3 4 Chair Franzese was shown on the grading plans for the project that there was only 5 a four foot slope between the church property and the land acquired for the parking 6 lot: The architect pointed out how both the existing concrete and new bituminous 7 curbing, along with the crown on the new driveway, would prevent drainage of 8 surface water towards-:the closest property to the west. The Commissioners were 9 also told that the mechanical engineer had determined an 8 inch underground pipe 10 would be adequate to carry the water flow to the manhole in the west parking lot. 11 It was also pointed out that the down spouts, which would direct the rainfall 12 onto the grade and upgraded roof drains, had been designed to take the storm water 13 inside the building, and then to spill it out onto the parking lot, with all 14 improvements intended to direct the storm water to appropriate places and not to 15 cause erosion on the adjacent residential property, Mr. Hensel added. The Building 16 Chairman also said property controls would be installed in any spots where there 17 might be a possibility of erosion during construction, particularly on the west 18 side near Mr. Porter's home. 19 20 Mr. and Mrs. James McNulty, whose home is just west of the proposed parking lot 21 at 2921 - 34th Avenue N.E. , participated in the discussion of the church's plans . 22 Mr. McNulty indicated that, although he had told church representatives he would 23 not oppose their expansion plans, he still had some real concerns about drainage, 24 snow removal , and storage, and a buffer to shield his property from the parking 25 lot activities. He questioned whether six inches between the grade and the top of 26 the curb would be adequate to prevent storm water from flowing onto his property • 27 and indicated he perceived the church would find in the long run, that concrete 28 curbings would be a* better investment. 29 30 Mr. Carlson told him that bituminous met all the standards required by the City 31 up to now and assured Mr. McNulty that he wouldn't get any drainage, since the 32 grade would be slanted to send the water to the center, and not to the edge of the 33 lot. Mr. Hensel told Mr. McNulty the church would be willing to build a six foot 34 fence between the lot and his property if that was what he perceived was needed to 35 provide him privacy on his deck and to prevent the headlights parked in the lot 36 from shining into -the McNulty' s bedrooms on the east side of their home. Mr. 37 McNulty said he doubted any church functions would last longer than their normal 38 bedtime. 39 40 Two property owners who live directly across 33rd Avenue from the proposed parking 41 lot, William McPherson, 3220 Silver Lake Road, and Lillian 'Koch, 2920 - 33rd 42 Avenue N.E. , were present to discuss their own concerns about the project. 43 Mr. McPherson indicated he had no objections to the parking lot itself, but had 44 hoped the exit wouldn 't be onto 33rd. He was also interested in what type of 45 landscaping the church planned around the lot, as was -Mrs. Koch, who also stated 46 she foresaw a problem backing out of her own driveway when the parking lot was 47 being used. She also was interested in_ learning just how having a parking lot 48 across the street would affect her property values. 49 50 Mr. Porter reiterated that he had no general objections to the proposed project, 51 but said he did have some specific concerns about drainage, which had been 52 addressed earlier in the evening. He said, with a 24 foot difference in grade • 53 between his basement and the parking lot, he was concerned that the drainage plans 54 might not work if the manhole couldn 't handle a heavy downpour or is frozen up, 55 as often happened in the spring.