2003_0915_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Janice Porter, 2621 Cohansey, spoke in opposition to the change because of the 3 protection and enhancement of the Harriet Alexander Nature Center, Run-off will damage the wetland eco system. Also, concern was expressed regarding "clear - 5 cut" of vegetation along the herders. Erosion and runoff`, construction debris will 6 damage the wetland. A petition was submitted in opposition to the proposal. The 7 housing development is unwanted. The City should take responsibility for this 8 land. 9 10 David Livingston, 2621 Cohansey, spoke to the vista 2000 program, and 11 environmental vision (page 20 ) preventing damage to wetlands, requires a 1 m comprehensive environmental inventory. He explained he was appealing to civic 13 pride to retain the undeveloped parcel and protect the adjoining park. 14 15 peter Pangborn, 2615 Cohansey, illustrated an aerial of the site. The project is not 16 consistent with adjacent neighborhood because of the tree removal and mass 17 grading. Trees will be destroyed for ponding. New townhomes will be larger than 18 illustrated on the proposed drawings. The staff report has no maximum house 19 size* the final townhomes could be much larger than — as large as the development 20 "'box ", The townhomes at 40x40 (1600 s. Q exceeds the size in the single family 1 neighborhood (twice as large). Roof pitch in the neighborhood is 4 to 12. A 22 twenty -six foot height would not be consistent with his two -story douse adjoining 23 the site. The townhorne has a full lower level (a two -story building as seen from 24 the south and wrest and 16 feet of roof). The Moser drawings are misleading in 25 that are roof line outlines while the proposed are wall outlines. In section 4. 1, staff' 6 report states that the site could be developed but control is still available. Why 27 have a common area? where is the screening between Cohansey Douses and new g development: The view should be blocked, no bushes or fences proposed. This should be part of the recommendation. 30 31 peter Pangborn stated that there was confusion in the setbacks. The project is not 32 consistent and should be denied or use the alternatives suggested by the 33 neighbors. He suggested an extension to September for Council decisions. 34 35 Mr. Moser responded to setbacks. There will be a 30 foot setback along the east 36 property lines. The "green box" concept allows for design flexibility, but still has 37 70 feet between units. This is a consistent use, but difficult to compare two -story 38 to one -story with lower wrap -out. There probably will be empty nesters housing. 39 He explained the neighborhood meetings, He explained the requirements for run 40 off from state agencies. There will be no abuse of adjacent wetland. It may be 41 dedicated as park land. A tree preservation plan will be prepared. 42 43 Chair Mulder closed the hearing. 44 45 Member 1psen asked how high the retaining wall would he (4'to 14" to 10' to 46 zero). The wall will not be exposed to neighbors to the east.