Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission continues Homestead model‑home design review amid steep‑pad, retaining‑wall concerns
Summary
The Planning Commission continued the design review for Homestead villages 12/14/15 after staff and residents raised concerns about finished pad elevations, a 4–5‑foot retaining wall adjacent to an existing subdivision and a narrow gap between fences; staff will return with engineering sections and options including single‑story layouts and architectural enhancements.
The Planning Commission voted to continue design review DR25‑0189 for model homes in the Homestead development (Villages 12, 14 and 15) after an extended discussion about grade differences and visual impacts on adjacent existing homes. Staff said the subdivision’s approved improvement plans left finished pad elevations roughly 4–5 feet higher on about 18 lots that border the neighboring Copperleaf subdivision, creating a retaining wall and a narrow private gap between fences.
Scott Greeley, associate planner, told the commission that staff had identified possible mitigation options — requiring additional rear elevation architectural enhancements, allowing single‑story homes on the highest pads (which could require setback or lot‑coverage relief), or adjusting rear setbacks — and asked for direction. "We are asking for direction from you on this," Greeley said during his presentation. A nearby resident told the commission the raised pads now "tower over" existing one‑story homes and urged more action, and the applicant (Richmond American) said it bought finished lots and was willing to consider architectural options but had limited authority over improvements set by the master developer.
Commissioners directed staff to return with engineering cross‑sections showing the retaining wall and house elevations, options for single‑story layouts on the highest lots, and proposed architectural enhancements for rear elevations. The commission continued the item to a date uncertain so staff can coordinate with engineering and the master developer and re‑notice the hearing to ensure neighbors have an opportunity to comment.
