06/14/2005 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Proposal consists for the construction of a single family cluster home development. Note: Architectural Review Board addressed this proposal on 7/21/04, 9/22/04 and 1/19/05. Planning Commission tabled this praposal on 9/28/04, I2/14/04, and I/25/05. Applicants requested to be postponed on 10/12/04, 2/8/05, 2/22/05, 4/26/05, 5/I O/04 and 5/24/05. Mr. Bohlmann informed the Chaumian that he is unable to vote due to a conflict of interest and will only participate as part of the audience. Mr. Spalding informed the applicant that only four members are present and if one wouid vote ag,ainst it, it woutd then defeat the applicantTs effort and gave the applicant an option to withdraw. Mr. David Ricco came forward and indicted they want to proceed. Ms. Wenger reported that the appiicant was Iast tabled at the January 25h Planning Commission meeting with the following recommendations: • Commission would allow setbacks less than 25 feet as shown on the plan • The applicant shall submit amended site plans and landscape plans that correlate in layout • Landscape beds will be relocated outside of drainage areas • Condo documents will be reviewed by the Law Department and shall include language requiring a mix of building styles/elevations including various garage door groupings • The applicant shall submit a Iighting plan • The applicant will work with the Engineering Department regarding the proposed culvert and drainage issues. Elevations have been submitted. No changes have been requested or made. Landscaping plans have been submitted and were revised to reflect ttie current site and grading plan. Plans now show a location for connection to a gossibie firture expansion area. Visitor parlang has been provided in various locations. Sidewalks have been provided on both sides of the street as requested. A Iight plan with fixture descriptions has been submitted as requested. A preliminary meeting was held in early May to review comments from the Engineering Department regarding the impact that the streana bridge%ulver design will have on the site plan. The City recommended tbat that while there is no required distance between a unit and detention basin, fhat a more flat area be provided around the units before the downwazd slope begins. T'he most recent submitfal continues to show the edge of detention basins in very close proximity to residential units #40, 41 and 19, shown on sheet 6 of 17. Mr. O'1Vviialley informed tlne Commission fhat it is in their purview to review the number of units and how they are situated, relative to the open space and the common azeas, as well as the proximity of the units to the creek, as well as the slope of the grade to the side of the building. Also discussed was the provision of easement areas for the possible future extension of the street. T his is shown on the dedication plat He further advised the Commission to address the site plan, and recommended that the Commission table fhe Iot split and dedication plat unfil Council considers the rezoning issue. Mr. Durbin reviewed that several units have grading problems. Mr. Ricco said the site pian had been revised 'a number of times to address these engineering issues. John Urbanick, architect for