11/25/2002 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

PRD Meeting 11-25-02 Page 16 pretty comfortable with the separations of 20', 40' and 60'. The minimum, in part, 1159.05 that would be D (4); it's the last paragraph down at the bottom of that page 3, was one of the things Planning wrestled with for a while. And what we came up with was, as far as the minimum building distance from private streets, that the front setback would end up being a minimum of 25' for the building, however, if the unit or the building had a front entrance garage, then the garage itself, that front entrance garage would have to be 35' back from the street. And you might recall on one of the photographs (or a couple of them that we had up there on the wall), some of the building wall units were closer to the streets than the garage doors, whether it was facing the street and some of them even when they were turned sideways, that side of the garage wall was, you know, closer to the street and probably at the minimum front setback and the main portion of the house was setback further or vice versa depending on which way the garage door was facing. They wanted to, first of all, to ensure that parking in front of the garage would have adequate front space and rear space for pedestrian use. You know, to walk around the front of the car or walk around the back without having to step out into the street. Rather than, maybe, trying to penalize just the front entrance garages, say being back 35', just the door itself if it was facing the street ended up being the requirement of 35'; anything else-the building and/or side entrance garage could be within 25' of the right-of--way from the street. Mr. Marquardt said I think the other consideration was to encourage that you didn't have all the garages facing the front, based on the observation from the Landerbrook and some of the other ones, it looks a whole lot better if you don't have all the garages facing.... Mayor Rinker said #4 is not lined up. Council President Buckholtz said I was going to ask why the distinction. So that's what you are saying, you're saying that it would be an inducement to.... Mr. Marquardt said that Landerhaven one where they had the garage-some of the other ones looked better and one of the reasons is it didn't have all the garages facing the street.... Council President Buckholtz said staggered. Mayor Rinker said if you can encourage the geometry it will look better. Mr. Samac said then on page 4 under parking regulations, under 1159.06 (a) there, what was recommended was 2-car attached garage, minimum being not less than 400 square feet in area. So you'd be looking at a 20 x 20 as a minimum or thereabouts. At the end ofthe--pretty much at the end of the classification-most of the rest of it is pretty much boilerplate requirements for associations, submittals and that sort of thing that everybody seemed to be in line with; there wasn't much in the way of discussion regarding those requirements. But on page 12, one of the other items other than this new zone classification would be to amend our zoning code to include now this Planned Residential Development District or Planned Residential Unit Development (however we're going to name it officially) to be part of our district and part of our zone map. There is one other item that is not in this proposed zone classification that you have before you. And that is-a motion was made to recommend that this zone classification not be governed in any way under the provisions of our Special Use Permits. In other words, an applicant can come