Laserfiche WebLink
Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Nixt, Commissioners Johnson, Jeffrey, Van Scoy and <br />Watson. Voting No: Commissioner Brauer. Absent: Commissioner Shepherd. <br /> <br />Motion by Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Jeffrey, to recommend that City <br />Council approve the site plan of Rivenwick 4th Addition noting the approved deviations and <br />contingent upon compliance with City Staff Review Letter dated March 5, 2004. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Nixt, Commissioners Johnson, Jeffrey, Van Scoy and <br />Watson. Voting No: Commissioner Brauer. Absent: Commissioner Shepherd. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt stated he believes they get more detail if they split the site plan and preliminary <br />plat as separate agenda items. He believes they have more focus on the architectural aspects if <br />separated. <br /> <br />Commissioner Brauer stated the use of this new urbanism term bothers him, especially since it is <br />not governed as to what constitutes new urbanism. He indicated it would be good to have that <br />information circulated to the Planning Commission. <br /> <br />Case #7: <br /> <br />Proposed Amendments to Landscape Requirements in the R-2 and R-3 <br />Multi-Family Residential Districts <br /> <br />Presentation <br /> <br />Community Development Director Frolik advised that as part of implementing the 2001 <br />Comprehensive Plan, City Staff, the Planning Commission and the City Council have been <br />involved in implementing the new Plan by reviewing and rewriting City Code Chapter 9, zoning <br />and subdivision regulations. She stated in 2002, the residential districts were amended. She <br />indicated that since the adoption of the amendments to the residential districts, Staff has <br />encountered a great deal of difficulty in applying the new landscaping requirements in the multi- <br />family districts. She stated the planting requirements are based on a certain number of trees and <br />shrubs per unit. She indicated after working with the new code, it became apparent that the <br />requirements were overly excessive and no site plan Staff received could effectively meet the <br />planting requirements. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Frolik stated Staff discussed this matter with the <br />Environmental Policy Task Force, and they worked with Staff to draft a new planting formula <br />that is based on canopy cover at maturity rather than the current stem count requirement. She <br />indicated this is an innovative approach to establishing landscape requirements and will provide <br />for a much healthier planting plan and survival rate. She stated for better survival rates, the Task <br />Force is also recommending decreasing the size of the deciduous and ornamental trees from 2.5 <br />and 1.5 inch diameters to 1 inch diameter; and decreasing the size of coniferous trees from a <br />height of 6 feet to 5 feet. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Frolik indicated the amount of canopy cover required on a <br />particular project site would be based on the ratio of impervious area to the entire site, multiplied <br /> <br />Planning Commission/March 11, 2004 <br /> Page 15 of 18 <br /> <br /> <br />