01/25/2005 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

In regards to the sidewalks, Mr. Conway said there is a section in the code that talks about the improvements going in as per engineering specifications. Engineering has interpreted that to say any requirements that they have also must go into a cluster home, and this is not a factual statement. Sidewalks are at the discretion of the Planning Commission. Previously, cluster home developments have been approved having sidewallcs on one side. Currently, engineering does not have a requirement that you must have sidewalks on both sides. Mr. Conway has not reviewed the new site plan, but understands it is causing the setbacks to be violated to the rear of the house. Mr. Yager aslced what the setback requirement is. Mr. Conway said it is 25'. Mr. O'Malley agrees with Mr. Conway's sidewalk comments. The objective of a cluster home is to have smaller lots. The street is not offered for dedication and it remains as a private street. Previously, the developer submitted a set of evidence and documents for review. He has had communication with the builder's attorney who is revising the covenant documents. Mr. O'Malley said that one of the issues that have come up in the City is that the residents of these cluster subdivisions will become concerned that they are not being provided with city services. In regards to the reservation of a lot for potential future access, they were not sure whether there were one or two lots that needed to be reserved for potential connection. The attorney understood that there was one lot reserved for future extension of the street at the end of the cul- de-sac. The site plans that Mr. O'Malley saw earlier were showing two locations. He recommended to the Board that they malce this a condition of approval that these documents be submitted and approved by the law firm. The only way to preserve the access for future connection by the condominium documents to fall out and dedicate that on their site plan. These need to be stipulated on the recorded documents and call it out in their legal findings. Mr. Conway said there are a few issues regarding subdivisions that are sandwiched between limited industry. They can only go to the boundary setbacks which are 25' in that area. However, where it abuts residents the setback extends to 35'. There is a multi-family residence in the rear. Mr. Yager said the property closest to Wild Oak Drive, it says 15' building setback on the drawing. On drawing #5, unit 22, it says 50' setback. Some of the units are right on the setback. Ms. Wenger said units 1 through 21 do not meet the 25' setback because the sidewalk has now been included on the side and now violate the setback. Mr. Laslco asked Mr. Conway, based upon his department's review of the plan, would variances be required pertaining to any of the setbacks that are shown on these drawings. Mr. Conway informed the Commission that they can approve the reduced setback, otherwise the applicant will require a variance from the BZA. Mrs. Hoff-Smith wanted clarification on what is rear and side yard lots. Mr. Conway said this is considered a judgment call. Units 1-28 is side yard, 29-35 is a rear yard, 36 -52 side yard. Mr. Conway said a side yard is actually a boundary line. Ms. Wenger said it is her observation since the beginning of this'proposal that units 29 - 35 have always been considered side yard. Originally, the applicant started with 25' of buffer, but it has been increased. She says it has never been treated as a rear yard. The applicant asked where in code 1136.06b does it mention 25' setback. Mr. Conway proceeded to read the paragraph. He then said there is no residential lot line abutting this development, therefore, only the setback for the boundary line which is 25'. A boundary line in a mixed use or cluster development is as you designated, which is the outside parameters of this development. In this case, the boundary line and the property line are the same. The boundary is not defined as the property line.