08/09/2005 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• Landscape beds were to be relocated outside of the drainage areas • Landscape plans would reflect the accurate and current site plan • Provisions requiring the mixture of building styles and garage door groupings would be incorporated into condo documentation • Condo documents were to be approved by the Law Department • A lighting plan for the development was to be submitted • Recommendations by Engineering Department, regarding culvert and other plan revisions were to be looked at • Road configuration with concrete base and asphalt overlay was acceptable • Curbs were to be barrier curbs instead of rolled curbs . The proposal was last discussed on June 14t'. At which time a number of concerns remained particularly grading in close proximity around the units. Related issues were whether homeowmers would be responsible for exterior maintenance of the units and the impact on the overall quality of the development proposal. Lighting was raised as a concern and whether an additional light could be added in the hammerhead for safety and security. The applicant met with City Planning, Engineering and Law Departments on August 3rd t0 discuss their submittal. The applicant indicated they had made the following changes: • Addressed grading by consolidating single units into double units and reconfiguring space • Lowering units by 2-8 inches • Modify condo documents so that homeowners were not responsible for exterior maintenance The City officials shared the following concerns and comments: • Density was not reduced, in that there are the same number of units as previously submitted • Reconfiguration resulted in more double and fewer single units (8 to 4), which is less desirable • The proximity of slopes was somewhat relaxed around the creek area, but not in other areas of the development that had similar slope issues • A lighting plan was not submitted • The landscape plan did not clearly show the southwest area near the main entrance how the evergreens would be planted along the property line in relation to the slopes adjacent to the units; it was not clear that the 6 to 8 foot trees proposed would offer effective screening • The development lacked neighborhood amenities traditionally associated with cluster developments and contemplated by cluster regulations (i.e., common areas, green space, landmark elements). She advised that the applicant choose to proceed with their proposal with no further modifications to the development plan. She said the Commission previously approved the rezoning from limited industry to single family cluster (which has not yet been approved by Council). The only issue currently before the Commission was the development plan. City Engineer Durbin indicated that since the meeting mentioned, his office still had not received revised plans addressing grading and the proximity of the three to one slope of what is proposed to be patios or decks. Mr. Koeth questioned if any engineering issues were resolved. Mr. Durbin commented that some cases were resolved but there were still isolated issues along the property line at different places. His department has been told that those would be addressed but there have been no new plans. Mr. O'Malley reviewed that regarding bylaws and homeowners association regulations, they were previously reviewed and he spoke with Ms. Sedan who made adjustments to the regulations 3