Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ridgetop Canadian Drive topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission weighs revised Ridgetop plan on Canadian Drive and recommends public hearing
Summary
Dan Bertram, contract purchaser for Grant's Development LLC, and engineer Steve Sullivan presented a revised 12‑unit 'Ridgetop' plan for Canadian Drive; staff recommended a public hearing and commissioners requested additional staking, planting plans, and coordination with planning and fire officials.
Dan Bertram, who identified himself as a contract purchaser for Grant's Development LLC, and Steve Sullivan of CCA Engineers presented a revised cluster development for Canadian Drive that would add 12 smaller homes served by a one‑way loop road and two underground detention systems to manage added impervious surface.
Staff told the commission the project is a resubmission of a plan originally approved in 2011 and recommended holding a new public hearing because the application seeks an amendment to a recorded conservation easement. Sullivan said the proposed layout reduces previously approved impervious surface in some areas but increases total imperviousness to about 0.8 acres and places 0.11 acres of regulated activity within the 100‑foot upland review area; the plan proposes increasing the easement footprint from 4.26 to 4.58 acres and adding plantings to strengthen the buffer to adjacent wetlands.
Commissioners pressed the applicant on emergency access, staging and construction impacts. One commissioner asked whether the existing incomplete house on the site would be finished (the applicant said it would). Commissioners also asked for rough staking of proposed house corners and drainage features in the field, submission of planting plans, and soil and infiltration testing for detention structures. Staff recommended coordinating any gating/breakaway access with the fire department and indicated the conservation easement amendment is governed by the Planning Commission rather than this body.
A motion to schedule a public hearing at the earliest opportunity was moved and seconded; the transcript records the motion but does not include a roll‑call result for that specific motion in the record provided. Commissioners requested that Sullivan attend the hearing and that staff circulate requested submittals (staking plan, planting plan, and any test‑pit or geotechnical data) in advance.
Next steps: staff will work with the applicant to provide the requested plan details and to coordinate a public hearing date once logistics and participant availability can be confirmed.
