Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Memo to City Council <br />t'lanning Case #01-22: Arden South Apanmems <br />Page 8 of 11 <br /> <br />eu <br /> <br />] 1. Grading and Utilities. Pending Evaluation By City Engineer <br /> <br />At this point, the City Engineer has not had the opportunity to review the plans submitted by the <br />applicant. The property would be serviced by existing utilities (sewer, water, gas, electric, and <br />telephone) from Cleveland Avenue. Drainage would be accommodated by a retention pond that <br />is proposed on the southern part of the property. Approximately 366 square feet of wetland <br />would be filled near the pond and southwest portion of the building. Silt fencing will be <br />provided along the eastern border ofthe property to minimize erosion during construction. Staff <br />would suggest approval be conditioned on compliance with any suggestions provided by the City <br />Engineer. <br /> <br />12. Aesthetics <br /> <br />A colored building elevation has been attached for your review. The base ofthe building will be <br />constructed of a rock face concrete block. The Commission might consider requesting the <br />applicant use an alternative material such as brick, or similar material, up to the first floor <br />window line of the West (front), North (facing County Road E2), and South (visible from <br />Cleveland) sides ofthe building. Brick, or a similar material, covering the garage level of the <br />East (rear) side of the building would seemingly be appropriate. e <br /> <br />Alternating columns ofhardiplank (durable composite siding) lap siding and hardipanel stucco <br />comprise the remainder of structure. The gable pitched roof provides some additional detail to <br />the roofline. While the balconies will not be functional (false balcony), they do provide some <br />additional architectural detail to the building fa9ade. <br /> <br />13. Additional Considerations <br /> <br />There is currently a city lift station located on the property. However, when the applicant <br />surveyed the property, no easement authorizing the City's use of the property had been recorded <br />and/or executed with the County. While an easement was contemplated in conjunction with a <br />development proposed by Hans Hagen, it does not appear as if it was ever finalized. A search of <br />the City's easement records also failed to produce any easement document. To rectify the <br />situation, the applicant has offered the City an easement. <br /> <br />Deadline for Al!:encv Actions <br /> <br />The original application for this planning case was received in June. At that time, the application <br />was found to be incomplete. On June 20, 200 I, the applicant waived 60 day review requirement. <br />Accordingly, the City is not required to review this application within the traditional 60 day time <br />frame. For reference, a completed application for this request was received on September 14th, 2001. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />8 <br />