10/22/2002 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

already in existence and approved, and is being applied. Here it is a bit influx. They have both the rezoning request and a site plan that are joined at the hip and going forward at the same time. In many examples, you are dealing with a rezoning as a hypothetical entity before you get into applying the standards on a development plan. In that case, you would be deferring to the Board of Zoning Appeals for the variances from the code as it stands. Here, because the rezoning and the site plan are both before the board at the same time, you are creating the standards that will be uniquely applied to this property. As Mr. Conway pointed out, when this cluster zoning was developed some 10 years ago, it was not contemplated that the regulations would be absolute. The guidelines are there, and unlike other zoning provisions where you have to defer to the Board of Zoning Appeals, here it is within the scope of the Planning Commission's power during this review to allow for some lesser setback for example, or for some smaller floor plan, than the code outlines. He previously cominented on the subject of the charter and the mandate under the charter. He does not want to make too much of that because the Planning Commission has already commented favorably on this development. Nor does he want the Planning Commission to disregard its mandate under the charter. Technically, the zoning proposal, the zoning classification, and the site plan won't be deemed to have been approved by the Planning Commission, or should not be. The master plan clearly indicates this was to be classified as a multiple- residence zone. The charter indicates that they should not approve a zoning classification contrary to the master plan. He doesn't want to make too much of that because adherence to the master plan and trying to work in conformity with it shades between a multiple district and a cluster zone. This is not that far removed and, in fact, it is less dense than a multiple-residence district. In some sense, their favorable comments, and to the extent that they recommend approval of some of these variances from the code, are not inconsistent with your obligations under the charter. But as a whole, the zoning classification of single-family cluster is contrary to the master plan. Mr. Spalding asked Mr. O'Malley if it is his feeling that in the declaration of the homeowner's association there should be some mention of the snow removal, and trash removal, to protect the homeowners or to provide them with that information. Mr. O'Malley replied that is his recommendation. Mr. Koeth asked Mr. Spalding if that is part of his association agreement since he lives in a cluster development. Mr. Spalding said they have private rubbish collection at the curb and they contract for snow removal. He said one major problem they have is the sprinkler system because it was put in at different stages of the development and it does not work properly. It could be a problem with this development. Mr. O'Malley said he would assume, and the engineer would know better, that with things like underground utilities, electric, sanitary sewer, roadways, etc., that it is all laid out and inspected and approved before the first model goes up, but the sprinkler might be an after-the-fact, site-by-site installation. Mr. Spalding explained that is what happened with this development. He asked what control the city has over sprinkler issues. Mr. Conway said there is nothing requiring it in the code. He said the proposed site will be a little more open to having those kinds of things done all at one time. The development Mr. Spalding lives in faced a lot of difficulty especially with the golf course and doing things in stages. Mr. Griffith added that from an engineering standpoint, they are just interested in the fact that whatever they do, they don't destroy the drainage concept. The water should flow the way it's supposed to flow. Mr. Griffith pointed out he may have given the wrong figure earlier for the face of curb. He may have said 22 feet, when in fact it is 24 feet. Mr. Spalding asked N1r. Conway about the front setback from the street and the figure of 4 feet. Mr. Conway said that is not a front setback. It is a setback related to the structure in relation to the roads. He said it could be side or rear. The closest point they found in the back is 4 feet. There is nothing narrower than 4 feet. Mr. Spalding commented on the driveway aprons and said it looks like the maximum is 5 feet. He asked if there is any requirement for a single-family structure that there be a 5 foot apron or anything. Mr. Conway indicated that is left to the expertise of the engineering department. Mr. Spalding asked what the city's position is on a typical apron for a single- family home. He said in looking at the drawing, he sees 5 feet as maximum between the garage and the street. He confirmed he is speaking of the depth. Mr. Griffith indicated there are no requirements. Mr. O'Malley said he believes Mr. Spalding received his answer from Mr. Conway. The distance from the 4