Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/02/2002

Home

and private driveway collectors. Abofthe driveways are at least 25 feet in length and do exceed the 20-foot wi,,dth restriction at the street. City Code requires a minimum of park. ina spaces and 4.~9 are proposed within garages, driveways and parking nodes. 'requires that garages be at least 240 square feet in size. The double garages propo-s!~7~e 324 square feet and the single garages are 252 square feet. She noted the lot covera~'~'~ed to 35% and the coverage in the project is approximately 13%. The structures o~:~,ate meet the 25-foot setback established in the new private street policy. The ~res on the Public streets are proposed to be set back 10-25 feet from the back of.~b~ratfi:~i~than 35 feet from the road fight-of-way line. The applicant has applied for a va.n'~i~:'~o the"~i~ack on the public streets. The City has engaged the services of SRF En~ne~ t0"~I~i(i~moise level study · . ~:.;&-¢?? '~e;~e~' . . for several developments proposed adjacent to T.H. #-47. Th~ae~elopment ~erm~t w~ll require the developer to comply with sound mitigation measures, d!e'~:~ined ne~ssa~ by the City Entdneer. The developer indicates thai all of the units ~ii~e potentiz/i~:~.~l~a, total finished floor living space of 1,658 square feet. City Code minim~;f(~i~d 3 be&t&~;'i~ts is 650 and 775 square feet respectively. It would appear that the'~'10or ~'~ wilt.:~ed ~-i~y Code requirements. Staff recommends Site Plan approval contingent'~0~i!~t~mpliance with Staff Review Letter dated March 28, 2002. %:~12~:, Gary Rudy, applicant, explained the'i~en'ors, will bed combination~';~!~'~}"Zd brick, and possibly stone, on the front. He,:S;ii;~ii.~a~$'i~i?gnd.,splits will be built,.:~¢4~ith approximately 1,660 square feet. They will ~.._~..V,.i?iei~h~::i~: or o I~'~:)$~?!-S~,,~. re.c r~or~??' Commission Business ~f!~, ,,;~i:~i!;- ' ';i~!?? ' Motion by Chairpersort Nixt, seconded by*'; 'ssioner Jo~son,'to recommend that the City Council approve::fhe;i:~t:0p:~ked site plan fo~'~¢ergreen Point contingent upon compliance with City StaffRe~i~Letter d'~'f~d~ March 28, 200'~d ~b:taining a variance to the front yard setback Co~'§iofi!~:Kociscak;:~-:~tect_~i.f mitigaff~r~-? needs to occur, the units may have to be reconfigured.":~n;:that,C~i~tii~;'2~:~f~:~{~'d~:~o be re-submitted to the Planning Commission. ,.~¢':'?~fi*r~ailed. Votin'g~:~es: Chairperson Nixt, Commissioners Johnson, and Reeve. Voting No: ???~;~t'>~-~'~lbners:'~ Braueri-:Kbeisc~Sweet, and Watson. Absent: None. Motion by Cemmissioner~'~scak, seconded by Commissioner Brauer to' deny the proposed site plan for E~,er~n Point.'~? Motion Carrie~;17,~oting Yes: Commissioners Kociscak, Brauer, Sweet, and Watson. Voting. No: ":~?;?j?:Chairperson:,.',~:~, Commissioners Johnson and Reeve. Absent: None· ~a~e#sJ~JY..'7:il;':-' Request for Preliminary Plat Review of Alpine Meadows Townhomes; Case ~:.:;:~? .... of Eighty Seven LLC Planning Commission/April 4, 2002 Page 7 of 14