PCMin_82Mar1_Public Hearing - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-~1- John Bearden, Consulting Engineer, Comstock and Davis, addressed the issue of water storage on the site. Storm water storage on the site is a problem. A map showing high water (four acres) was presented and he recommended t hat thevuster should not be spread out over such a large area because of the maintenance required. Since the storage areas are connected together, when one fills it will overflow into another. When all storage areas are full, it will overflow onto the north/south streets and drain southerly to Larpenteur Avenue. He feels this will occur periodically. On the east boundary, the storage areas are abutted against residential properties without buffer and buffering should be considered in this area. The project is feasible; however, it is recommended that the storage of dorm water runoff be concentrated into smaller areas and that provisions be made so that water can slowly drain away between rainfall events by percolation and other means. This will minimize the problems with maintenance that will occur in the wet/dry zone. Whatever areas that are used for ground surface water should be in a drainage easement so that the city can come in if need be to police this area and perform this maintenance service if for some reason the homeowner's association does not complete the work. John Sirney, Principal Member and Vice-President, Zuber Architects, presented his information in slide format on community issues, PUD issues, neighborhood capability, project design and energy efficient design. The community issues are the broadening of the tax base, population increase and adequate utilities to the proposed development while the PUD issues encourage amore creative approach to the use of a land. He refers to a 1961 Ordinance, Section 1.l~.6, Paragraph 3, stating that the number of dwelling units for the entire site in the planned development category shall not exceed the total number permitted under the density control provisions for the district under v~ich the land is located. As far as neighborhood capability, does the project jeopardize the facilities of the park and should this proposed plan include recreational facilities within the site? With regard to project design; what is the hard data, what are the projections, and does the access to Cleveland actually exist? There is too much density with lack of open space, park areas, and recreational facilities. He is concerned with the ponding areas i.e. fencing. The solar issue was addressed by slides indicating how the condominuims would block the sun from the houses on Tatum Street during different times of the year. Inc inclusion, he feels the land. is very valuable and this should be weighed not only monetarily. He is in favor of the PUD concept and that it will respond not only to the landowner giving him a high return on his investment but the community can also gain by getting parks and open space. Gus Hard, 1937 Autumn, feels that there is a lack of dedication of the land for park and recreational purposes and therefore, there is a lack of the concept in general. It is the weakest aspect of the project as a whole. Referring to concepts, he means what can the property be used for and how can we best present and make that a useable functional relationship as far as the community is concerned. He refers to Ean McCard in putting together a design in that "There is no project until JOHN BEARDEN, ENGINEER, COA~STOCK AND DAVIS JOHN SIRNEY, VICE-PRESIDENT ZUBER ARCHITECTS GUS HARD, 1937 TATUM •