Laserfiche WebLink
1 b. <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 c. <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />Placement of inechanical units shall be along the north side of each home <br />and screened to minimize noise and visual impacts to adjacent residents. <br />All required utility, drainage, and ponding easements must be placed on <br />the final plat or conveyed to the city as a separate document prior to <br />issuance of building permits for the six homes. <br />R d. The hours of construction and contractor/subcontractor parking must <br />{k continue to he regulated (through the PUD). Specifically, weekday hours <br />1 �� would be limited to 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. and weekend hours being limited to <br />I 1 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. (405.03D). <br />1? <br />1� <br />�; <br />I� <br />[ �a <br />�1� <br />] �i <br />I t} <br />?�� <br />?i <br />�� <br />� i <br />, ,� <br />,� <br />�� <br />�� <br />�k <br />�� <br />�� <br />�� <br />3� <br />:}:� <br />3� <br />e. Prior to issuance of anv building �ermits. the Rice Creek Watershed <br />District and the Public Works Department must approve all final grading, <br />draina�e, and storm water management plans; and the Public Works <br />T�����y nc � �t must approve the final water and sanitary sewer -utility plan. <br />� All buildings, tree branches and roots, debris, and any soil contamination <br />(subject to 1VIn�CA requirements) must be removed from the site (not <br />burned on the site) prior to the issuance of a building permit. <br />g, The provision of Park Dedication fee in lieu of land dedication amounting <br />to $1,000 per unit or $6,000 (as per the 2004 Park & Recreation <br />Commission review andrecommendation). <br />h. The submittal of the draft restrictions and covenants for the single family <br />home owners association must be reviewed and approved by the <br />Community Development Director as consistent with the PUD and other <br />related land use requirements. <br />Chair Trayz�or asked if the change in housing was the only maj or change in the proposal <br />(from townhomes on small lots to single family homes on small lots). Thomas Paschke <br />explained the Council's request for Planning Commission input. <br />3 S Member Pust asked for a definition of "zero lot line" homes. ("Zero lot line homes" are <br />-��a homes that have a zero feet of setback from one side lot line, but still have a required <br />�, setback between structures.) She asked for clarification on the "common area", which <br />3� would be owned by all 6 property owners. She asked for clarification on the comer side <br />�'a lot setback for the southern most single family house (17 feet). Member Pust commended <br />��r the developer for working with the neighborhood over the project development period. <br />;L <br />'�� Chair Traynor asked if the rear (west) setback would change. Thomas Paschke explained <br />'-�, the setback is similar to the concept approved for townhomes, except the single family <br />d�# homes would have more green space instead of rear paved driveways. The heights of the <br />�� units and massing are similar (townhomes vs. single family). <br />Page 3 <br />