Laserfiche WebLink
<br />• The three existing maple trees on Porter Road are to be preserved. No brickscape or <br />plantings would be installed around the bases of those trees as per the recommendations <br />of the City Forester. Taxus is to be planted south of the area before the entrance drive. <br />Although the applicant submitted a map showing the parcels to be included within the current <br />project, a formal application and consolidation plat had yet to be filed. She recommended <br />that any approval Planning Commission makes be conditioned upon the receipt and approval <br />of a lot consolidation plat. Barring the consolidation plat, it was Ms. Wenger's opinion that <br />the applicant had addressed a11 of the requests the City staff and the Planning Commission <br />had. <br />City Engineer Durbin stated that the applicants were still required to submit their lot <br />consolidation plat as the plan submitted was not sufficient and no application or fees had <br />been paid. He advised that the Assistant Engineer sent the applicants azchitect a detailed <br />letter stating what was required. <br />Assistant Law Director O'Malley voiced that he agreed with the City Planner and advised <br />that approval should be conditioned so that no building permits are to be granted until a lot <br />consolida.tion plat is submitted and approved. The existing North West building which is a <br />service garage should be addressed to clearly state that it can not be demolished unless it is <br />depicted as part of the current proposal and the plans clearly call out what is to be done. <br />Furthermore, the residential lots owned by the applicant should not be included in the lot <br />consolidation plans. He advised the applicants that the City would not want to create a parcel <br />with mixed zoning. <br />Applicants Presentation: <br />Mr. Suhayda indicated that a landscape plan was also included with the current plans. As the <br />planner indicated they submitted what was required. He questioned if the law department <br />was indicating that the residential lots should not be consolidated with the commercial lots <br />and which lots were residential. Mr. O'Malley advised the applicants that they should <br />contact the Engineering department regarding which lots are zoned residential and which are <br />commercial. Ms. Wenger advised that City staff would work with the applicant to make sure <br />the applicant submits a correct consolidation plat. <br />Board Members Comments: <br />Mrs. Hoff-Smith questioned why only 10 taxus plants were shown on the plan instead of the <br />20 the City Forester recommended. Mr. Suhayda suggested that 20 taxus plants would not fit <br />in the area. The board told the applicant to follow the City Foresters recommendations. Mr. <br />Bohlmann questioned why the brickscape stopped at the Porter driveway. Mr. Suhayda said <br />that the Forester indicated that if the brickscape were continued it would damage the existing <br />trees to the north of the driveway. Mr. Bohlmann asked why the irrigation system was not <br />shown nor were barrier curbs shown as both are required by code. Mr. Suhayda indicated <br />that there would be an irrigation system and the proper curbs would be installed. Mr. <br />Bohlmann asked if all utilities would be underground and what would be done with the lift <br />/storm water pump sta.tion which houses the pump controls. Mr. Suhayda indicated that it <br />would remain in its present location as it is required by code to be in a clear visible location. <br />Residents Comments: <br />Mr. Hebebrand, asked if the service garage would remain, the vacant lot remain vacant and if <br />the residential lots would remain residentially zoned. Mr. Lasko indicated that the existing <br />garage would remain, zoning of each of the parcels would not change and the vacant lot <br />2