CCP 11-26-2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Memo to City Council 1'lannmg-caseJr0T::22::A:rden 50uth Apaftfijimls Page 8 of 11 e- 11. Grading and Utilities. Pending Evaluation By City Engineer At this point, the City Engineer has not had the opportunity to review the plans submitted by the applicant. The property would be serviced by existing utilities (sewer, water, gas, electric, and telephone) from Cleveland Avenue. Drainage would be accommodated by a retention pond that is proposed on the southern part of the property. Approximately 366 square feet of wetland would be filled near the pond and southwest portion of the building. Silt fencing will be provided along the eastern border of the property to minimize erosion during construction. Staff would suggest approval be conditioned on compliance with any suggestions provided by the City Engineer. 12. Aesthetics A colored building elevation has been attached for your review. The base of the building will be constructed of a rock face concrete block. The Commission might consider requesting the applicant use an alternative material such as brick, or similar material, up to the first floor window line of the West (front), North (facing County Road E2), and South (visible from Cleveland) sides ofthe building. Brick, or a similar material, covering the garage level of the East (rear) side of the building would seemingly be appropriate. e Alternating columns ofhardiplank (durable composite siding) lap siding and hardipanel stucco comprise the remainder of structure. The gable pitched roof provides some additional detail to the roofline. While the balconies will not be functional (false balcony), they do provide some additional architectural detail to the building fayade. 13. Additional Considerations There is currently a city lift station located on the property. However, when the applicant surveyed the property, no easement authorizing the City's use of the property had been recorded and/or executed with the County. While an-easement was contemplated in conjunction with a development proposed by Hans Hagen, it does not appear as if it was ever finalized. A search of the City's easement records also failed to produce any easement document. To rectifY the situation, the applicant has offered the City an easement. Deadline for Al!encv Actions The original application for this planning case was received in June. At that time, the application was found to be incomplete. On June 20, 200 I, the applicant waived 60 day review requirement. Accordingly, the City is not required to review this application within the traditional 60 day time frame. For reference, a completed application for this request was received on September 14th, 2001. 8 ,