HomeMy WebLinkAboutHARMONY RIDGE, 2ND FILING - FDP - 49-95G - CORRESPONDENCE - CITY STAFF (5)From: Jim Newcomb <jnewc@verinet.com>
To: <dmoore@fcgov.com>
Date: 05/05/2005 2:10:40 PM
Subject: Retaining Walls -Harmony Ridge Filing 2
We have talked about retaining walls extensively as they are not and will
not be used along the perimeter of the development. We are maintaining the
existing slope not creating a new one. Walls are a large and noticeable
feature on Phase one not on Filing 2. Further, our plan includes a great
deal of screening outside the lots maintained by the HOA.
We have developed general guidelines for the homes along the ridge:
* "to make possible a one story exposure from the street and two levels
in the rear"
PROBLEM: To maintain the natural slope in the rear and build the required
two level home, the builder will need to be able to blend the grade from
the rear of the home to the lot line. These are very small lots (designed
as far from the Natural Area as possible). Natural slopes mean uneven
slopes. None of the rear elevations of the two level homes will exactly
match the the natural slopes even from one side of the lot to the other.
If the rear of the home is lower than the natural slope the builder can
construct a small non-structural landscape wall as part of a back patio. If
the rear of the home is higher than the natural slope, I expect a deck or
garden or something developed in the rear of the home within the lot which
will need some manageable non-structural landscape to tie to the existing
grade.
Each home will be unique in its character and landscape; quite different
than but clearly reported when we illustrated a single home design with the
simulations. Nothing completed in landscape within the lot will look
anything like the large walls in Phase 1. We already have controls on the
color, building height, fences, roofs and vertical face. Restrictions
regarding the large block walls need to leave room for landscaping design
within the lots.
Note on S4 of 5, the sketch illustration provides an example of structural
extentions (2nd sketch) or sunken patio (3rd sketch) to a home.
I believe it is OK to think of it as if you lived there. We are developing
a nice neighborhood with flexible design and good views into and out of the
site. Our work will not be over when these mylars are recorded and the DA
is signed. The real test is how we do in the next phase.
I am concerned in the timing of this issue. Tomorrow is day 15. 1 will
appreciate your attention and correspondence. JIM
CC: <erics@jimselldesign.com>, <solt@fcgov.com>
From: Jim Newcomb <jnewc@verinet.com>
To: "Doug Moore" <DMOORE@fcgov.com>, <erics@jimselldesign.com>
Date: 05/05/2005 4:29:57 PM
Subject: Re: Additions to Specific Architectural Standards
This statement is not acceptable in such a broad, inclusive form. Eric
believes he has a solution to narrow the definition. We will wait for his
input. TKS JIM
At 03:47 PM 5/5/2005, Doug Moore wrote:
>Jim,
>No, I'm sorry the way I wrote this statement does not, if the wall can
>be seen from the natural area. I can argue that many homes are built
>around the world with difficult topography not using retaining walls. I
>would prefer that we not get into that and that we resolve this issue.
>1 understand your challenges and you know mine. Can you work on my
>statement to make it livable for the both of us? I'm open to try, send
>me a revised statement and let's try to quickly work this out.
>Thanks,
>Doug
>-RETAINING WALLS VISIBLE FROM THE ADJACENT NATURAL AREA ARE NOT
>ALLOW ED.
> >>> Jim Newcomb <jnewc@verinet.com> 5/5/05 2:52 PM >>>
>Does this allow for landscaping and structural needs within the lot as
>described in my Email today and pictured on S4 of 5? JIM
CC: "Marc Virata" <MVIRATA@fcgov.com>, "Steve Olt" <SOLT@fcgov.com>