Laserfiche WebLink
IVlou�ds �Iiew PLan�►�n� Com�►ission 3une 2, 1999 <br />Regular I�eeti�g Pa�e 4 <br />s11ow a simple, four-unit back-to-bacic building with no axchitectural features to break the building's <br />unzxzterrupted straight lines. The front elevation shows four windows, four garage doors and four <br />en�ryways. The side elevations do not show any windows, while rear eievation show ,.,'` ee windows <br />per unit. ��, , a � <br />Ericson reviewed the site plan and eaplained what each <br />is flat with Iittle, if any, eievation change from one end to <br />a preliminary drainage plan for tl�e four-plex, and has fo <br />other mitigating factors. He stated that there are three <br />complex to the west of the subject propei�ty, which <br />applicant's property. He stated �hat this runmoff causes p� <br />the applicani's properiy. Ericson stated that one optio <br />minor grading, the properiy couid utilize the catch basiri� <br />be established to carry run-off into the City stoizn ��c <br />easexnent for the storm sewer, and suggested t�i�t a�fi�Yt <br />storm water xun-off Ericson stated that <br />the adjacent property owner in an effort <br />thai the W�odlawn Terrace Apartmen <br />�; <br />property. He stated that because m�: <br />solution will be achieved. <br />Ericson stated that, at this <br />rock for landscp,�ing ptup'o <br />the fina��slte pl�t i�i, a, qua <br />City. <br />Ericson <br />exterior =;'-�aranc� ot <br />ihey a� � � ��t ground level <br />be ; - xterior light bet� <br />tha �'__: exteriar Iighting <br />exist, <br />�v „ <br />_�� ��esent �; � i e,x.pla�ne � at the sfte <br />�th�er. He�stated that staf�has revie e�� <br />, <br />it would�b"e sufficient it` t�ie�G v,�c�e no <br />��� <br />-plexe�� `to the no�tli =at�d ari apartinent <br />;',extensive runwof� flowii�g' onto the <br />i� and''accumulation of starm water on <br />fhe drainage issue would be that with <br />�uiity Road I; atid a right-of-way could <br />He stateci that:the applicant has no <br />�� easement �a��granted to faeilitate the <br />c�iscussion between the applicant and <br />;e issues; and another option might be <br />ert,_tl�eir run-off from the applicant's <br />:aff feels confident that an acceptable - <br />nothing more than sod and decozative <br />t1�a� staff reconunends that specific plantings be shown on <br />ity ihat would be acceptable to both the appiicant arzd the <br />ad;�ug�;esied s��me simple changes which could be utilized to improve the <br />e development. First, he suggested that the eniryways be moved so that <br />�d 112at 1:h�y be protected by some type of overhang. Second, there should <br />w�i�`e�ac�h entryway and garage for safety and security purposes. He stated <br />�hown in the site plan at this time. Third, with the Iawered entryway, there <br />be sufficient r.�iii for a second window for each unii, perhaps in the foyer area. Last, the <br />ays far #he ,en�nits could be moved so that access is taken from the sides of the building <br />.h�n th�r:frc��i� Ericson siated that these chan�es, and any others proposed by ihe Planning <br />E�Sio�x; "�I�c�Li1d be incor�oraied into the site plans for f nal approval by the City Council. <br />Ericson stated that there were considerations to be taken in regard to the parking situation. He stated <br />�liat the third unit to the north cauld not park in front of the garage as ihere was not enaugh room. <br />He stated that the applicant could possibly provide on-site paxldng elsewhere, and tliough this was <br />not a desirable sitraation, it could be acceptable if the tenanis were made aware of this r�striction. <br />Secondiy, he stated, Yhere does not appear ta be sufficient area for bacicing out of the complex. He <br />