Agenda - Council - 06/11/2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I be 30-35 feet away from plat boundaries and all structures are at least 20 feet apart. The structures on the private driveway collectors meet the 25 foot setback from back of curb. The structures that front on the public streets are subject to a 35 foot setback from the right-of-way; the site plan is proposing a 30 foot setback from right-of-way and the developer received a 5 foot variance. The units meet the minimum square footage required under City Ordinances. City code requires a 15 foot wide screened buffer area when multiple family developments abut a single family district. The developer is proposing a combination of berm along the west side of the development. The developer has which is generally acceptable. The Parks supervisor has reviewed the ph requirement of 1 tree per unit has been met. He suggested an buffer is included, in order to meet the Code. Grading and Utility of the preliminary plat process. Sidewalks are being provided o~n,,ofie side of .... :~ ~% streets and a trail will be constructed parallel to Alpine Dnve,~: the entire the plat. Staff is recommending site plan approval contin review letter dated April 24, 2002. a 4-foot ~e Plan has noted the added if the as part .e public of Iaff Commission Business Commissioner Johnson questioned whether both berm and used. Community Development Director Frolik fence and trees. She explained this development trees are needed as a buffer. She said the combination of berm, homes and more is negotiable. Chairperson Nixt stated a, d~P~h~fisive is being considered in the Chapter 9 rewrite. He suggested it, i;~?a~i~ropri~te~ material being proposed. Commissioner Jonson. stated he'~s;¢Safi~w~':~'?lot of buffe~g being used, ~ough he thought a 4-foot be Co~issiOher K06iscak indicafed the be~ should be 5 feet. community Developh~t:.Dire~mlik reiterated the buffering could be a combination of f~nCe'} bern and ~ees, bfl~;i-~;,should ;~'ach 5 feet. Co~is~ioner Jonson suggested Staff work with the developer on the issue of materials used Mr. Peterson sta~'he'has had si~ificant discussion with the neighbors reg~ding buffering. He noted it is in the de~eloper's best interest to ensure adequate scree~g is in place. Commissioner Johnson questioned whether the developer had issues with regard to the Staff review letter. Planning Commission/May 2, 2002 Page 13 of 23 -31-