01-23-2006 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. d'�"�— . ��.,�n� MEMORANDUM To: Mike Gaffron From: Steve Bohl llate: January 20, 2006 Re: Glendale Cove Preliminary Plat Application (Revised) Revisions: Janu�ry 20,20�6 1. We are providing sketches and images that indicate what the homes will look like from Willow Drive (looking northeast.) These images have the actual elevation points of new and existing grades. The scale of the homes are accurate. Note: tile home on Lot 8 is a rambler plan the others are 2-story pl�ns. 2. For the meeting Monday night I will have an overlay that shows the actual landscape plan. I have met with Doug Mensing (AES) and reviewed tlus plan to make sure that we are using the appropriate materials that work within the scope of re- introducing native plants back into the area. We are still developing the plans for the lower ground cover that will blanket the grotmd in the buffer and setback areas to ensure that those areas will be maintained and undish.�rbed. 3, I have included a"Covenant and Guideline"proposal that will require that the rear elevations of the homes will have character and design similar to the fronts. The restriction to limit the ainount of walkout rear elevations to 60% of the back of the living area of the home may offer the most significant impact on reducing the 3-story effect on the 2-story homes. By having these covenants and restrictions, this is probably the inost important aspect of making the homes look appealing from the back side. I have used tlus in other neighborhoods very effectively. My architect is in the process of designing two plans that we will build as models in the neighborhood. One of them will be the rambler plan for Lot 8. Both of these plans will be very unpressive in the detail and sensitivity to the neighborhood. 4. After driving and looking at other neighborhoods and their viewscapes I feel very coiif'ident that tlus neighborhood will far exceed the level of design, character, landscaping and appeal of those neighborhoods. We plan on this being desigYied to a level the city will be proud of. 5. The meeting with MCWD made us aware that we are not able to use both the dominimus and incidental wetland exemptions for their approval. It appears that we will meet all requirements of MCWD for their approval without using both exemptions. We also discussed that Orono may benefit from allowing us to use the incidental wetlaiid exemption for the setback on Lot 10 even though we won't need it for MCWD. This would be a beliefit i'or Lot 10 and inay be a benefit for the fuhire trail easement. MCWD will be reviewing this and will forw�•d their conclltsion.