Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/09/2020

Home

be ideal for driveways onto the road, there are other single-family home driveways on the roadway, so this would not be unique. He stated that the depth of the lot would prevent the private frontage road that was previously proposed with the townhome concept. Commissioner VanScoy referenced the comment related to the perimeter landscaping and asked why staff would ask the developer to be responsible for that. City Planner Anderson replied that it is not typical for a developer to complete the plantings, as that typically falls to the individual builders. He noted that there are perimeter plantings and outlot plantings not associated with any lot being constructed and therefore there would be a potential for confusion and frustration for individual builders that anticipate two trees per lot and then discover that some lots have nine or ten trees. He stated that it would be difficult for building staff to track and place on an individual permit. He stated that it would seem more prudent to have a single entity responsible for those plantings to prevent confusion. Commissioner VanScoy asked if that has been required of other developers. City Planner Anderson stated that staff is attempting to solve the surprise that builders would have on whether two, six or ten trees would be required on the lot. Commissioner VanScoy asked why different lots would be responsible for a different number of trees. City Planner Anderson displayed the Sketch Plan and identified lots that exceed the two front yard trees, noting that a builder would need to be aware that there would be additional expense to install those trees. He noted that could create a difficult scenario for staff and the builder. Commissioner VanScoy asked who developed the landscape plan and tree locations. City Planner Anderson replied that the applicant provided the landscape plan. Mr. Lazan stated that some of the confusion came in when the transition was made from a villa/townhome project with an HOA that would have common grounds and common irrigation. He stated that this would be the same product type and plat at COR 3, which are individual lots. He stated that they developed this plan to address the comments related to the landscaping requirements, noting that this is how this could meet the requirements. He recognized that different lots would have different burdens in order to meet the requirements. He did not recall any landscape requirements for COR 3, outside of the typical builder requirements. He noted that this is no longer a villa project and is a standard plat. Commissioner Anderson stated that if these are single family lots, they should fall under the two- tree rule. He noted that the adjacent residential is distanced and therefore density transitioning would not be required. He asked why so many trees are being required for standard lots. Planning Commission/ June 4, 2020 Page 13 of 18