Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Development Design Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
DRB continues design-review hearing for proposed home at 40 Maple Street over incomplete plans
Summary
Design review for a proposed single-family home at 40 Maple Street was continued after board members and public commenters found submitted site plans and elevations inconsistent or insufficient; the board asked for accurate, scaled drawings, clearer landscaping information and clarification on setbacks and street orientation.
The Development Review Board on July 17 continued the public hearing for a design review application to replace an existing house with a new single-family home at 40 Maple Street, citing inadequate and inconsistent application materials. The board and members of the public said the submitted drawings were not to scale, did not reconcile site plan dimensions with elevations, and failed to show accurate setbacks, landscaping and the front-door orientation toward the street. The applicant, described in the application materials as owner Ron Bushey and represented at the hearing by a contractor, presented a handwritten site plan and a 30-by-30 house template. Board members and reviewers called the drawings inaccurate and requested scale drawings, consistent elevations and a clear narrative demonstrating compliance with the Land Development Code. Public commenters and a representative from the Tree Advisory Committee urged the applicant to preserve or document existing vegetation, and asked the board to require a street tree if possible. City staff said utility lines limit space for a large shade tree in the immediate frontage and suggested that a small ornamental tree could be appropriate. Board members discussed the property’s status as a nonconforming lot with existing encroachments and reminded the applicant that the new structure cannot increase any existing nonconformity. Several board members recommended that the house be shifted farther from Maple Street where feasible to allow room for a street-tree planting and to better address the public sidewalk and park access. Because the site-plan graphics, dimensions and elevations did not tell a single consistent story, the board voted to continue the public hearing rather than approve or deny the application. Staff said continuing the hearing would not require the applicant to pay a new filing fee; the application will be rewarned when the applicant is ready to return with corrected materials. The board requested the applicant submit scaled, accurate site plans and elevations, clarify whether the proposed driveway will remain at its current location and width (staff said 20 feet had been measured in a site visit), document existing trees and shrubs that may count toward landscaping credits, and show how the proposed front entrance addresses Maple Street or Kings Court.
