10-12-06 Planning Comm. Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 12, 2006 have another concept which jogs the road in from LaBore, creating a greater distance between the road and the Thermis property. Benning noted that all drainage issues would have to be satisfactorily addressed in grading plans. Benning stated that he has heard the concerns of the neighborhood. Knudsen noted that the intent of a concept review is to provide feedback to a developer. Barraclough asked if the intention was to preserve the homes at 685 and 693 LaBore Road. Benning stated Chat that was the intent, but noted that it may be necessary to remove the house at 685 LaBore Road. Knudsen agreed that putting the street in further to the east would resolve a lot of the concerns. Barraclough suggested the need to include 699 LaBore Road in the development, noting that this would make for a better development. Benning was asked the timing of the project. Benning replied that the very earliesC the project would begin would be March of 2007, but noted that there are many details to be worked out. Dillon asked if this concept moved on to Che City Council meeting on October 25`x'. The City Planner indicated that that would be up to the applicant, and suggested it might be better to work through the issues identified this evening before moving Che concept on to the Council. Benning indicated that that he would like to delay further consideration of the concept plan given the need to rework it. Therefore, he did not anticipate the concept moving forward to the October 25`h Council meeting. The City Clerk requested that Benning submit a request for delay to the City in writing. Once received, the Clerk will notify the neighborhood of the delay and when the concept would be re-scheduled for additional consideration. Duray asked about the impact to trees. Benning suggested that a different layout would save more trees, but noted that some trees will need to be removed no matter how the layout is designed. One property owner asked that future submittals show the impact to trees as well as include adjacent properties on the diagram for better reference points. Judy Amadict, 2938 Valento Lane, noted that the City Code relative to double frontage lots requires an additional depth of 20 feet. Therefore, the Valento Lane properties should have at least 20 feet of untouched property 7