Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission approves new single‑family home at 4 Pricemont Drive; commissioners press for stronger tree‑replacement plan
Summary
The commission approved a site‑plan and stormwater concept for a new single‑family house at 4 Pricemont Drive (vote 4–2) while directing the petitioner to provide a landscape plan and clarifying tree‑protection and stormwater details; commissioners expressed concern about massing and canopy loss.
The Planning and Community Design Commission approved a petition for a new single‑family home at 4 Pricemont Drive on Sept. 19, concluding site‑plan, community‑design and concept stormwater management review by a 4‑2 vote. The motion was made by Commissioner Laura Ragsdale and seconded by Tim Spiegel Glass.
Staff told the commission the lot is approximately 13,045 square feet (about 0.299 acres) and therefore subject to site‑plan review because of lot‑depth and area thresholds. The project’s concept stormwater plan proposes flow wells/cisterns in the front yard and connecting PVC piping to an existing inlet; staff asked the petitioner to verify downspout locations on the final building plans to ensure calculations capture all roof runoff.
An arborist report submitted with the application evaluated 10 trees; staff said six were proposed for removal because of demolition, utilities or grading. Staff recommended that the developer submit a landscape plan that includes at least two medium‑sized trees within the front yard in locations that do not conflict with the proposed stormwater pit and utilities.
Commissioners raised two recurring concerns. Several members questioned the house’s massing relative to predominantly single‑story adjacent homes and asked whether the two‑story entrance should be softened. Architect Pavel, representing the petitioner, said the design uses sloped side roofs and horizontal siding "to bring down the mass" and described ceiling heights as standard. Commissioners also pressed the applicant for tree‑preservation clarity and requested a distinct tree‑protection fence separate from construction and silt fencing.
The motion to approve included staff conditions noted in the 09/19/2024 staff memorandum; staff will verify final downspout locations, tree‑protection fencing and receipt of the landscape plan prior to permit. The motion passed 4–2, and staff noted they will supply commission members with comparative municipal tree‑policy examples and an internal table of canopy/replacement approaches for future policy discussion.
Next steps for the petitioner include submitting a verified construction set showing downspouts tied to the proposed stormwater system and a landscape plan that complies with staff recommendations before permit issuance.
