Laserfiche WebLink
to ensure some diversity in the front elevations, created a reservation for a street opening, and <br />took steps to ensure that homeowners would be on notice that the streets are private streets <br />subject to snow removal, trash removal and repairs by the association. At the last meeting it was <br />suggested that the regulations be further amended to reflect that the association would be <br />responsible for the exterior maintenance of the buildings, given their proximity to grade changes. <br />Although he has not seen those changes he is confident that Ms. Sedan would supply the changes <br />in the guidelines. <br />Pertaining to Single Family Cluster District, the land is zoned Limited Industrial Zoning and <br />whether or not the city would choose to rezone it to Single Family Cluster is a function of <br />legislative determination. The way that the zoning code is set up, the development plan and <br />rezoning determination go hand and liand. As Ms. Wenger explained the current plan which has <br />been before the commission for some period of time, is because it was proposed in concept only <br />on the front end, with greater detail on the development plan which followed. The developers <br />were permitted to present their concept and to present the rezoning to City Council in advance of <br />the development plan review and since that period of time the Master Plan has caught up with the <br />development plan. Although the Commission made a previous recommendation in favor of the <br />cluster zoning, that recommendation is still current because the rezoning and development plan <br />go hand in hand. This particular zoning district relaxes a number of the setbacks that are seen in <br />a traditional single family development and the Commission is creating a neighborhood with <br />certain amenities associated to coordinate this area with surrounding areas. Mr. O'Malley <br />recollected some modifications to some of the setbacks along the west property line that were <br />adjusted due to the sidewalks which the Commission requested. The Commission does not have <br />to send the setback issue to the BZA because the Commission is creating the zoning district at the <br />same time they are reviewing the development plan. In conclusion, under chapter 1136.13 the <br />commission should make a report to council regarding findings and recommendations with <br />respect to the compliance or the lack of compliance with the regulations, standards, and criteria in <br />the zoning code. Mr. Ricco, the attorney for the developer, came forwaxd to address the proposal. Mr. Koeth <br />questioned why new plans had not been submitted. Mr. Ricco pointed out that their last meeting <br />with Planning Commission was June 14, 2005 and at that time a concern that was presented to <br />them was the proximity of the slopes to the building units. In particular units 39, 40, 19 and 18 <br />were mentioned specifically which are units nearest the creek and they have revised the plan to <br />move the slopes further from the units wherever possible. Mr. Ricco commented that the density <br />of the plan had not changed since the plan was before the Planning Commission. Furthermore, <br />the density is wifhin the limits allowable in the zoning code for this type of development, the <br />total number of units has never changed since it was first presented to the Commission. Mr. <br />Koeth commented that that in fact is one of the Commission's concerns that the density is too <br />much. Mr. Ricco stated that density of the site was not mentioned by any of the Planning <br />Commission members at the June meeting. There was a concern over the proximity of the slopes <br />to the units and that brought up the question as to who would be responsible for the exterior of <br />the units. Since then that has been changed to clarify that the unit owners would not be <br />xesponsible for exterior maintenance. The plan particularly in the area of the units surrounding <br />the creek has been revised substantially to try within good engineering principals to move the <br />slopes away from the buildings. Mr. Koeth read aloud from the June 14t' minutes, pertaining to <br />Mr. Durbin suggesting removing a unit to help in the reconfiguration. Mr. Ricco believed that to <br />the extent that some of the slopes exist at the rear of the units even removing a unit would not <br />help resolve the slope issue. He reminded the Commission that the grading plan remained <br />unchanged until the concern was raised in June. <br />4