PC 03/25/1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Iserson gave a history of the application, identifying the proposed location. He noted that in 1990, the application was originally approved by the City's Design Review Board. However, since the project was never constructed, the approval expired and the applicants aze now reapplying for design review ~- approval as originally conditioned. Mr. Iserson described the proposed units and architectural design. He stated that staff is pleased with the design and feels it will fit in nicely with the existing older homes in the azea. He also described the landscaping plan, noting that a Homeowner's Association would be established to maintain the common open space, driveways, and landscaping. Mr. Iserson also pointed out although no amenities are proposed or required For the open space, staff feels that the area can be improved and recommends that the Commission consider including a tot lot for the project. In addition, Mr. Iserson reported that the projects either meets or exceeds all minimum municipal code requirements for the RM-4,000 District. Mr. Iserson also detailed the vehicular access, circulation and parking. He noted that the proposed parking exceeds the minimum code parking requirements, although staff has included a condition of approval requiring that the guest pazking spaces be marked in order to ensure that residents of the project do not use those spaces for their own vehicles. Mr. Iserson also reported that one of the guest pazking spaces toward the reaz of the site includes a hose bib which would allow residents to wash their cazs on site. However, he suggested that the Commission reconsider whether the hose bib is still desirable, given the new storm-water run-off regulations requiring that any car wash space be covered and connected to the sanitary sewer. He stated that although a carport or other similaz cover would meet all setback requirements, staff feels it would negatively impact the appearance of the project. While staff feels the azchitecture and design aze attractive, there are a few minor concerns with the proposed colors. Staff feels that a deeper, richer color with different accent color would make the project more attractive. A condition of approval has been included addressing this issue. In addition, staff also has a minor concern with the column design of the front porches and wants to be sure that it blends in well with the rest of the architecture. Staff has, therefore, also included a condition requiring a detail of the column on the construction drawings. The landscaping plan was described, and Mr. Iserson noted that two oaks trees would be preserved on the site. However, a birch tree toward the front of the site has been removed, and staff has included a condition of approval requiring that tree to be replaced. Mr. Iserson stated that although the adjacent neighbors to the west are supportive of the project, some have requested that trees planted in the reaz yards be located in order to block views into their yards and windows. Staff feels this request is reasonable and has, therefore, recommended a condition of approval which is described in the March 25, 1998 Memorandum. Mr. Iserson stated that staff feels the project is well designed and will fit in well with the surrounding area and recommends approval subject to the conditions identified in "Exhibit B" and the March 25, 1998 Memorandum. In response to a question by Commissioner Wright relating to Condition 8b, Mr. Iserson clarified the area in which staff is recommending a different color. Planning Commission Page 4 March 25, 1998