2006_0828_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

depending on storm water management controls. Ms. Bloom noted the current nature of the site and extent of impervious surface; and the anticipated improvements available with the proposed development use and more green space and storm water control being implemented. Ms. Bloom reviewed the groundwater infiltration; differences in "street" runoff and "backyard" runoff; and options available for storm water management, whether through ponding, or underground storage based on infiltration requirements, costs, and trends. Further discussion included preliminary price points projections (i.e., $350,000 - $500,000 for single-family units; and $250,000 -$350,000 for multi-units) depending on final sizes and designs; comparable elevation and architectural details for single-family and multi-family units; HRA. review of conceptual plans, and future meetings with the I-��A with more specific designs to meet their criteria and standards; safety concerns with a storm water pond and other options available (i.e., underground storage); City Code setback requirements for PUD's and distance and proximity accommodations from structure to structue; and setbacks for adjoining residential properties and neighborhood characterization. Developers addressed their flexibility with side yard setbacks, while noting that the more width available, the more pleasing the home's curb appeal would be in repositioning garages from the fronts of the homes. Additional discussion included the home designs, and the developer's preference to allow the individual residents to have some input in the design and thus vary the streetscape, while keeping with the "Arts and Crafts" theme; incorporation of architectural detail as a possible condition to avoid "tract-type" housing and provide variety; and establishment by the developer of a multi-unit association to address ongoing maintenance of exteriors and roofs and common areas, and a reserve account to ensue that current and future needs are met. Chair Tra�nor expressed his personal concerns related to the four-plex; and opined that is was inconsistent with the character and balance of the rest of the development; expressed further concerns related to cooperative maintenance issues; but recognized the developer's need to maximize the number of units on the property. Chair Tray�ar sought developer comment on placement of another twin home, rather than a four-plex, and planning for larger homes on Lots 7 and 8. Mr. Zawadski noted that the proposal previously presented to the Planning Commission had included three (3) twin homes on Hatnline Avenue; however, that that Planning Commission and public comment had expressed concerns regarding access on Hatnline, thus those modifications for a four-plex to address and alleviate those access point concerns.