3.1 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

II Planning Commission Minutes Approved 7/26/00 July 12, 2000 Page 6 Jeff Peterson City Engineer, discussed the driveway design noting it has been a longProce ss. The issues have come down to the turning radii and impact on trees and grades versus retaining walls. The project has met engineering requirements but not planning issues. Engineering and planning had both listed their limits. The applicant first tried to meet both requirements with difficulty. So they tried to meet engineering requirements however, the retaining wall heights in some areas were beyond what the planning department would support. Town staff cannot come before the Council in a fractured manner so the previous staff report recommended denial. Now you have a different staff and a different perspective. Looking at the project, the current planning department felt the project, in general, was supportable and could be mitigated by vegetation and landscaping. From an engineering standpoint, the project is approvable. Sandy Humphries, Environmental Design Committee, indicated that the Committee has opposed the project from the beginning. She discussed the rare plant life which has not been seen before. The issue is not about the applicants but about the Town's children and the future of the Town. This area is a jewel. Scott Vanderlip, Pathways Committee, would like to keep the proposed pathway, working with the Open Space District, for the realignment. Because they had the support from the applicants previously, he was not aware until he read the July 5a' letter that they were requesting the deletion of the pathway request. The Pathway Committee has not had an opportunity to discuss any alternatives to the recommendations. They would be willing to work with the applicants. Sharon Shumate, 25765 Bassett Lane, asked for clarification regarding the pathway location. Bill Maston described the pathway proposal using the model of the site. The original easement was a straight line. The issue was if this was the right alignment. The pathway was always shown sharing the road alignment up the hill. Nancy Ewald, Pathways Committee, supports the pathway going through the property connecting to the open space. The committee would be happy to work with the applicants regarding placement. As a resident, she would have never seen this property. She was surprised it was a two story on a ridge. She felt the noticing process should be expanded for a project such as this. Bill Maston concluded by stating "let's uphold what was intended." He provided the original Tentative Map which was approved in 1988 and was found to be consistent with the General Plan. It created a exception to a conservation easement to allow building on the top site and limited to a one story structure. If it were not following the General Plan, how was it approved in 1988. This is a unique site, over 22 acres with most of it considered in a conservation easement. By definition, this is a one story house stepping down the hill to conform with the slope. There are other houses in the area higher than this project. Sharon Shumate, 25765 Bassett Lane, noted that she and Peter Nieh took time today to talk to people in the area and put together a letter which will be faxed to the members. They are opposed to the development, quoting Section 10.2-201. She is working on a further petition which will be submitted at a later date. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING