Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Wenger commented that engineering issues had been discussed many times and had long <br />been unresolved, such as issues of culvert versus bridge and detention basins impact on grading <br />which have been unresolved until very recently. So for the applicant to say that the grading has <br />always been the same, even when the city engineer is telling the Commission the plans have not <br />been approved and do not meet their requirements, puts a burden on the Commission to try to <br />determine the adequacy of engineering plans. So to say they have approved the grades in <br />previous meetings is unreasonable. Mr. Yager reviewed that the Commission had continuously <br />asked for a new photometric plan, homeowners association documents, grading, and site plans, <br />for seven meetings now and they had yet to be provided as a complete package. He asked if in <br />fact homeowner's documents were updated and resubmitted. Mr. O'Malley indicated that he <br />received the documents however had yet to receive a revised version which include that the <br />association would be responsible for property maintenance of the exterior of the units. <br />Mr. Yager commented that he had a landscaping plan from Yard Master which had not been <br />significantly revised and was in parts illegible, so that the adequacy of buffering could not be <br />determined. Mr. Koeth questioned if appropriate plans had been submitted. Ms. Wenger <br />indicated that plans submitted had been discussed with the applicant, and while staff had made <br />recommendations for changes, the applicant did not make changes and instead chose to proceed <br />with what was submitted. <br />Mr. Ricco indicated that the trees planted would be 8 feet tall which was mentioned at a prior <br />meeting. They would properly place the trees on the slopes to provide the buffer. As far as the <br />lighting plan it will be as it was submitted previously, but will have an additional light added. <br />Mr. Yager stated that the elevations have been the same every time they are submitted without <br />any call-outs to identify anything, there is the ARB material list in the packet but it is too general <br />to determine the precise materials. If it is not clear on the plans how could the Commission be <br />expected to make a proper ruling. Mr. Ricco said his focus since the last meeting had been on the <br />site plan and he was not aware any of the plans that were previously submitted were inadequate. <br />Since the last meeting they have tried to define and narrow the issues that were left open and <br />suggested there had been no discussion of the issue now raised. Mr. Yager stated that the <br />applicants should not have to be told how to prepare accurate documents as they should be <br />working with registered professionals. <br />Mrs. Hoff-Smith stated there was no difference in the elevations of the buildings as they still <br />show the double units having different garage doors and the applicants were told to make the <br />double units with matching garage doors. There is still a bathroom right next to the refrigerator <br />door in the kitchen, and this issue has been raised previously. Mr. Ricco advised that those issues <br />would be something they would still look at. Mr. O'Malley believed that the bylaws did state <br />that the double unit garage doors would be the same, but would have variations within the single <br />units. Mr. Yager commented that at the January 25th Planning Commission meeting the <br />applicants stated that they would make changes and now the plans still do not reflect them. <br />Building Commissioner Conway stated that his department is responsible. for enforcing the <br />provisions after Planning Commission and Council approves projects, and if the drawings are not <br />clear and do not show what the Commission wants, it becomes very difficult to enforce. He <br />requested that once the project leaves Planning Commission it is very clear in a motion what <br />Planning Commission wants. Mr. Yager stated that the Building Department shouldn't have to <br />try to read through 7 or more sets of minutes just to try to decipher what has been requested or <br />agreed to, all the plans should have everything accurately spelled out by final approval. He <br />5