Laserfiche WebLink
questioned if the applicants were seeking final approval why accurate plans had yet to be <br />submitted. Mr. Ricco stated that is correct and they would be happy to clarify anything that is <br />not clear on the drawings if they are able. <br />Mr. John Urbanick indicated that the units on either sides of the creek were adjusted in terms of <br />their layouts so that more room could be created between the units abutting the pond areas. They <br />combined some of the singles into doubles which is allowed within single family cluster. He <br />passed out a sheet showing the old layout and the new grading in the area of the units in question. <br />The changes moved slopes 12 to 40 feet from the buildings and the prior were 0 to 6 feet. Mrs. <br />Hoff-Smith stated that although the distance has increased she still does not think the plans are <br />any better as there are drop-offs directly at the back of the buildings. Mr. Urbanick indicated that <br />at a meeting last week with city officials they discussed grading along the sides and rear of he <br />units, at which time Mr. Durbin made suggestions as to how the rear grading could be altered and <br />drains added to accommodate patios better. However they did not have a chance to make those <br />changes. Their goal is not to push something through and then make changes later. From an <br />engineering standpoint there are details relative to headwall design on the culvert relative to <br />detailed pavement specs that he does not believe are issues relative to the Planning Comrnission. <br />They are items for a technical professional to finalize prior to the permits as they will not be <br />approved until they are finalized by the City. Adjusting the grading in the rear of the building <br />and adding drains is a good idea, but they didn't have time to make the changes on the plans. <br />Mrs. Hoff-Smith did not agree with Mr. Urbanick as grading and placement of the patios affects <br />the aesthetics of the site and that is within Planning Commissions purview. Mr. Urbanick stated <br />that they wouldn't propose the grading unless they felt the units could be built the way the <br />builder wants them built. He believes that whether it is a deck or patio they could be done. <br />Mr. Lasko asked Mr. Durbin if the requested changes were material to the point that they needed <br />to be on drawings to see before a final approval is given. Mr. Durbin indicated that the <br />Engineering Department does not receive elevation plans for each individual unit built they have <br />to look at the entire site at one time. His concern for the development is each of the units have a <br />sliding glass door out the back of the unit and as soon as you step out the glass door there has <br />been no provision for a patio to be built or shown on any plans and if there is no patio or deck it <br />is a direct slope to the ditch. If a wooden deck is built then the deck encroaches into the drainage <br />ways of the site. If a patio or retaining wall is built they would also encroach into the restricted <br />areas. However those issues can be resolved through proper grading changes, but he is unsure as <br />to when the line should be drawn as to when the issues are addressed, now or later. <br />Mr. Yager questioned if units 17, 18, and 19 could put any type of deck without them <br />encroaching into the detention basin. Mr. Durbin indicated that those units were a concern as <br />well as units 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, and 36 as they would encroach into the detention basin if <br />there is a patio or deck as well. Mr. Yager reviewed that the June 14th Planning Commission <br />minutes reflected that John Urbanick said the slopes were 3 to 1 and it was the builders intention <br />to allow the homeowners the option of choosing a patio or low-rise deck as every unit has 10 to <br />20 feet designated for a patio area. Mr. Urbanick gave Commissioners a sketch showing a side <br />view of a unit to give everyone an idea of what a deck or patio would look like. Mrs. Hoff-Smith <br />stated that she is concerned that the Commission has yet to see an adequate grading plan and <br />being asked to give final approval on something the applicant says he is going to change. Then it <br />would be up to Mr. Durbin to try to decipher and remember the Commission's intent. <br />Mr. Yager thanked the applicant for the sketches as they clearly showed what Mr. Durbin was <br />trying to address. He asked if any section of the deck or patios were within any part of the <br />6