Comment/Issue Summary

PUBLIC COMMENT

F Mark O'Lear, 917 Stone Creek Drive;

§ stormwater concern;

§ limiting the buildings to maximum of two stories;

§ provision of secondary access versus sprinkling the buildings;

§ providing a gate for emergency access.

F Tim Vanleer, 5213 Branch Wood Court, agreed with Mr. O’Lear’s comments

§ secondary access point. 

§ safety concerns –increased traffic through a family-oriented neighborhood.

F An unidentified speaker, 913 Stone Creek Drive agreed with previous concerns

§ opening Winthrop Drive,

§ crash gate would be an acceptable alternative. 

§ combination of single-family, duplex and a church all on one street seemed “odd” for a residential street and did not fit the continuity of the rest of the neighborhood. 

§ Visual appearance along Stone Creek

§ need for more-than-the-minimum buffering. 

F Corey Lang, 901 Stone Creek,

§ tallest buildings proposed on higher grades, emphasizing their height and making them visually intrusive.

§ added traffic

§ secondary access

§ area too small to accommodate all necessary elements and proposed density

§ balconies and grading differences would significantly reduce privacy on individual lots.

Applicant/staff comments

access to Stone Creek would be included. 

full access was not needed or requested.

A single-story clubhouse would look out of place among two- and/or three-story residential units.  Putting more residential units on the second floor of the clubhouse had been discussed.

Moving the building further from the area approved for single-family development would certainly address some of the concerns raised

Keep in mind the adjacent property to the west is approved for single-family development but nothing has yet been constructed.

Various kinds of landscape materials can be investigated, but mature plants are more costly, their placement must be carefully planned around detention areas, and evergreens are currently subject to disease in this area.

The applicant felt that the back-to-back orientation of buildings and the placement of the detention pond provided adequate buffering. 

This element should not be confused with transitioning – the adjacency of a completely different building type.

the Commission had a fairly wide scope of ability to condition building, scale, and massing. 

substituting a four-plex across the street from the single-family homes still left transition questions about scale and massing, even though the footprint was smaller

Concern/suggestion as stated by Planning Commission with regard to revised submission:

B Eichhorn

• return with detailed elevations showing how the buildings would fit the area in massing scale and style. 
• low-key lighting be considered for the clubhouse.

B Jennings

• building continuity

B Ermeling

• using lighting and landscaping to mitigate the impact of the clubhouse.

B Riordan

• intrusive lighting was to be [preferred not moving the buildings]

B Harris

• look at moving the building that may be a four-plex further from the road.

B Erickson

• support for the two-story four-plex concept

B Burress

· Smaller building footprint, further from the road and two stories

· Creation of a corner building with two facades

· Using bedrooms as a buffer