My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12-02-2002 Planning Commission Meeting
Laserfiche
>
Planning & Zoning
>
Agenda Packets
>
2002
>
12-02-2002 Planning Commission Meeting
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/10/2016 12:14:54 PM
Creation date
10/10/2016 12:14:31 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
88
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
This insistence seems to bind the hands of the Commission too much, especially when <br /> the applicant is requesting densities almost double the maximum density allowed under <br /> the most generous of Ordinance interpretations. If the Commission is going to go out on <br /> such a limb, it does not seem unreasonable to require some more innovative thought be <br /> put into this design. <br /> This layout provides no amenity to compensate for the increased density to those units in <br /> Block 1. It provides only modest amenity, in the form of a patchy green-space area, to <br /> those units in Block 2. A pair of quad-units on Block 2 would free up a significant <br /> amount of green space for a centralized recreation area that could be connected to Block <br /> 1 by a trail. A Block 1 with only one duplex unit would relieve some of the congestion of <br /> the layout in the block and provide additional common space. <br /> Another option would be to reduce the layout to six units, the maximum allowed under <br /> the Ordinance. This would give more flexibility in layout options given the proposed <br /> unit layout. It would also allow for more effective open-space. <br /> Based on these observations, we recommend that the Planning Commission discuss the <br /> R alternatives and give the applicant some additional direction on how to proceed. We then <br /> recommend that the Planning Commission table the application until next meeting to <br /> allow the applicant time to make modifications. <br /> If the Planning Commission would like to approve the proposal, we recommend <br /> consideration of the following conditions: <br /> 1. The applicant shall submit revised association documents addressing the long- <br /> term preservation and maintenance of open space consistent with the City's <br /> Ordinance. The revised document must be acceptable to a majority of the <br /> Planning Commission. <br /> 2. Association documents must be reviewed and be acceptable to the City <br /> Attorney. <br /> 3. The applicant shall submit and erosion control/stormwater management plan. <br /> 4. Each individual unit shall have, and shall be considered, a separate water and <br /> sewer connection. Each individual unit shall have a separate water meter. <br /> E <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.