Laserfiche WebLink
Larry Koshak, 15700 St. Andrews Lane N.W. - stated that the City approved a drainage plan for <br />this particular development, and he encouraged the Commission to consider retaining that same <br />drainage plan. That plan does not take the water from that pond out to the street. He affirmed that <br />there is a critical drainage problem existing which does not need to be compounded; any additional <br />water is going to affect those pipes. <br /> <br />Dennis Peek, Director of Development for North Fork, Inc., stated there was a grading and <br />drainage plan submitted with the preliminary plat of Northfork 5th Addition. The final plat for <br />North Fork Links does not indicate anything going to the pond; it showed drainage to the front. <br />He explained that Andrie Street was approved by the previous City Engineer, and the problem has <br />existed from that point and should have been dealt with then. He stated North Fork was not <br />advised of this problem until they decided to make this improvement, and "to raise this at the 1 lth <br />hour is totally inappropriate." Mr. Peck stated that what is being proposed does not increase or <br />decrease the existing drainage problem, and he doesn't feel it is fair to require them to take care of <br />that problem in order to be able to go ahead with the improvement. <br /> <br />Jan Koshak, 15700 St. Andrews Lane N.W. - stated she did not want the aesthetics issue to get <br />lost here with the drainage issue. She could not understand how a plat could be approved, lots <br />sold based on that plat, and then a developer can come back to the City for adjustments to that plat. <br /> <br />David Tincher, 16091 Andrie Street N.W. - stated he was a member of the Northfork <br />Homeowner's Association Architectural Review Committee, and he supports the view that <br />aesthetics is an important issue---limiting the house size and the building pad elevation. He added <br />that their committee requests reseeding be done immediately following the grading to prevent <br />erosion. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hendriksen inquired if the Architectural Review Committee had any standards <br />limiting the height of houses in North Fork. <br /> <br />Mr. Tincher stated he would have to research that as he was not aware of any. <br /> <br />Commissioner Deemer inquired if Mr. Peck had any objections to Ms. Frolik's July 5, 1995 <br />memorandum. <br /> <br />Mr. Peck replied he did not, and he went on to say that he did not want this issue to be <br />confrontational. He explained that as the lots currently exist, two-story houses can be built on <br />them, however, being able to build a walk-out grade is highly favorable since that is what is selling <br />in North Fork. <br /> <br />Noting that the proposal is to raise the front elevation of the building pads to 887/888 feet, <br />Commissioner Hendriksen inquired as to what the elevation would be if he went out and built <br />without grading. <br /> <br />Mr. Peck stated the lots were presently at 881/882 feet but that City Code allows them to raise or <br />lower that by 2 feet without a permit. <br /> <br />Mr. Koshak stated that the percentage of grade from the street to the garage pad is proposed to be <br />8%, and he finds that objectionable to be "creating large ramps" across the street from his home. <br />He again suggested returning to what was proposed in the original plat, but he added that some <br />type of compromise would be better than 887 feet. <br /> <br />Commissioner Deemer inquired whether there was a two-story height restriction in the PUD. <br /> <br />Planning Commission/July 5, 1995 <br /> Page 6 of 13 <br /> <br /> <br />