Laserfiche WebLink
board recoinmends it be approved." And then vote on that and go on down the line. You can make a <br />finding that, for example, the setback proposed at 4 feet does not comply to the code yet you <br />recommend it be approved. He suggested making a finding as to whether an item complies to the code <br />or not and then make the recommendation to approve, disapprove, or modify it item by item. Mr. <br />Koeth indicated the Planning Commission will make a report to Council. They will go through what <br />the building department had as far as variances. Mr. Koeth asked if there were any issues with the 4 <br />foot setback. Mr. Spalding indicated he objects to it because of the lack of an apron for many of the <br />interior units. Mr. Koeth asked if a motion is necessary. Mr. O'Malley said he could put it in the form <br />of a motion or he can style it as a report pursuant to section 1136.13, and submit it to Council. <br />Chairman Koeth proceeded with each item discussed. <br />Item 1 - Front Setback <br />R. Koeth asked if anyone else objects to the setback issue. Mr. Spalding indicated he objects. The <br />other five members agreed it is acceptable. <br />Item 2 - Rear Setback <br />R. Koeth mentioned the rear setback variance of 35 feet. He asked if there is any disagreement with <br />that variance. Everyone is in agreeinent that the rear setback is acceptable. <br />Item 3- Square Footage of Units <br />R. Koeth mentioned the square footage of the units themselves. They are below the requirements of the <br />city. The board feels with the option of using loft space, and the opportunity to build on the second <br />floor, the proposal is acceptable. The board members all agreed. <br />Item 4 - Sign <br />Mr. Conway indicated that issue will go to the Board of Zoning Appeals. <br />Item 5- Width of the Street <br />R. Koeth indicated they are all in agreement on the width of the streets. Mr. Conway said it is his <br />understanding that engineering is in agreement with it. The width is acceptable. <br />Item 6- Homeowner's Association Bv-Laws <br />R. Koeth made the recommendation that the homeowner's association by-laws address the waste <br />management and snow removal issues. He recommended that they consider addressing the sprinkler <br />system as well. <br />Item 7 - Paxking <br />Not an issue, acceptable. <br />Mr. Lasko asked Mr. O'Malley if he had any other concerns in relation to his review of the by-laws as <br />they currently exisf that was not addressed by the Planning Commission. Mr. O'Malley replied <br />affirinatively and said he would like the board to include any issues with respect to easements, the <br />description of the easements. They need to make it clear the city will not come to the rescue, and if it <br />did, the city would be reimbursed. He said it might be helpful for City Council to know that the <br />engineer had reported on a blacktop surFace as opposed to concrete and approved it. He said he <br />believes that was addressed the last time. He said the above ground detention basin in lieu of an <br />underground basin was also reviewed and approved as he recalls. That might be included in the report. <br />Mr. Koeth asked if the detention drains out to I-480. Mr. Corsi indicated that is correct. Mr. Koeth said <br />they approved the new landscaping that was submitted after the meeting with the Architectural Review <br />Board. The applicant has complied with the board's requests. Mr. Koeth indicated the photometrics are <br />acceptable. He said that will be their recommendation to Council and he would add the comments <br />made by Mr. Lasko. We all agree we are going outside the paradigm of what they consider a cluster <br />7