My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-30-2016 Council Packet
>
City Council Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2016
>
11-30-2016 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/23/2019 10:28:19 AM
Creation date
1/4/2017 2:51:21 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
62
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
3 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />The side and rear of the buildings are shown to be entirely vinyl lap siding. Staff continues to <br />recommend a higher grade of material (e.g. “LP”, or fiber-cement board composite siding) in <br />place of vinyl, and additional architectural interest on the sides of the buildings facing Rice <br />Street. Even though the primary entrances to each building will be from the internal private <br />street, the primary view of the project will be from Rice Street, and this exposure would greatly <br />benefit from additional attention. <br /> <br />Landscaping Plan. The applicants have submitted an updated landscaping plan that shows a <br />variety of shrubs and trees in the internal courtyard area, a mix of deciduous and evergreen <br />trees between the rear building walls and adjoining property, a planting of deciduous shrubs <br />along the stormwater ponding area, and a planting of ornamental perennials flanking the <br />entrance drive. <br /> <br />Staff has the following comments: <br /> <br />1. The plan does not identify ground cover (sodded lawn, mulched planting beds, <br />etc.). This addition should be made to the plan to complete the materials list. <br />2. The plan does not identify irrigation, but this should be added as a condition of <br />approval. <br />3. The tree plantings in the rear areas do not show how they will be located in relation <br />to proposed patio spaces (which are mentioned, but not shown on any of the <br />plans). The patios should be added to the plans (or decks, if grading requires it), <br />and the landscaping should address the location of these improvements. <br />4. The plan notes that patios will be screened by Techny Arborvitae or by six foot <br />fencing. Staff would recommend use of the Arborvitae. <br />5. The plantings to the south (rear) of the south units does not address screening <br />and/or buffering from the adjoining residential units. The neighbors have asked for <br />a maintenance free fence. Staff would recommend a more extensive planting of <br />larger evergreens, such as Black Hills Spruce. In the alternative, a fence would <br />provide some separation (but would not grow). In addition, maintenance of <br />boundary fences can be problematic. <br />6. There is a visitor parking area to the east end of the private street, adjoining the <br />stormwater pond. This area should be more extensively planted with evergreen <br />shrubs to ensure that headlights do not impact the single family area to the south. <br />A thicker boundary planting of evergreen trees could replace the need to add <br />shrubs to this area. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Summary and Recommendation <br /> <br />Planning staff believes a number of the previous comments have been adequately addressed, <br />but there remain a few issues requiring attention. If a Development Stage PUD approval is <br />considered, it should be accompanied by the following conditions: <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.