Laserfiche WebLink
Commissioner Johnson stated he understands the concern, and he raised the issue, but the <br />conccrlo |lc has is requiring sidewalks that will never be used. He indicated he thinks pedestrians <br />will uso the streets, and he believes they will compromise the concept if they try to force <br /> <br />(?hairperson Nixt asked why the sidewalk had to be five feet or be concrete, or if it could be an <br />aesthetic access only three feet wide. <br /> <br />(i;ommissioner Brauer agreed, indicating that is why he said it could be a trail. <br /> <br />Colnmissioner Levine agreed he would not want to walk that close to people's houses. <br /> <br />~!'hc applicant indicated that by minimizing the driveway length and adding sidewalks there may <br />bc ,~;lopc issues. He stated with ADA standards.a sidewalk can only be a 2% slope, which may <br />cause concern with the slope of the driveways. <br /> <br />(2ommissioner Brauer asked the length ofHorton 1 and Horton 4. <br /> <br />Fhc applicant indicated they are 625 feet from the center of the right-of-way on Rhinestone and <br />Pcridot. <br /> <br />c;~>mmissioncr Brauer asked how they would deal with snow removal. <br /> <br />Mr. Mcllenbach stated when they look at the plan there are two options. He indicated they could <br />!;,.~ o['1' thc dead end on Herren l and 4, and also asked to have plenty of room at the catch basin <br /> <br />Commissioner Van Scoy asked if they were meeting the requirements for brick facing. <br /> <br />(~Ol1'] munity Development Director Trudgeon stated they are, and indicated the brick requirement <br />was revic'wed during the first phase and this is basically the same. <br /> <br />Metier', by Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Chairperson. Nixt, to close the public hearing at <br />7:55 p.m. <br /> <br />M~>tion Carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Nixt, Commissioners Johnson, Brauer, Levine, Van <br /> and Watson. Voting No: None. Absent: Commissioner Shepherd. <br /> <br />Commission Input <br /> <br />Commissioner Van Scoy stated there is a difference of opinion on the sidewalk. He indicated he <br />It:els il would be a possibility with the potential change to the ordinance on driveway length to <br />incorpo~-ate sidewalks without altering the current driveway length proposed. He slated he would <br />like to s~e sidewalks on Herren 2 and 5. <br /> <br />Planning Commission/April 21, 2005 <br /> Page 9 of 23 <br /> <br /> <br />