12/14/2004 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Li ht? ing: Applicants originally proposed mailbox lights throughout the development. The Architectural Review Board recommended lights be placed farther back in the yards. The applicant has not submitted revised cut sheets of light fixtures to be used. Condominium Documents: Declaration of condominium and bylaws, as well as easement documents were received and transmitted to the Law and Engineering Departments. The Law Department has been in contact with the applicant to ensure easements and conditions are fully detailed in legal documents. She suggested that the Law Department would address the issue further. En in?ing Related Issues: A number of issues remain. The following deviations can be approved by Planning Commission: • Sidewalk on one side of road (sidewalk on both sides required) • Cul-de-sac is longer than 500 feet (500 foot maximum) • Proposed curbing is roll style (straight curb required) Safetv Considerations: At the September 28t" meeting, Planning Commission members wished to have input from the Fire Department regarding several safety issues raised. Included in member's packets was a memo dated 10/4/04 from the Assistant Fire Chief indicating there are no significant site issues or concerns with the proposed development. Mr. Spalding questioned how the development would impact the master plan review taking place for the immediate area. Ms. Wenger believes that it coincides with the recommendations of not only the 1992 master plan but the current updates for 2004. Building Commissioner Conway indicated that there were a few engineering items relating to code issues. However, in this type of development, the Planning Commission has the flexibility to recommend to Council that they feel the intent of the ordinance is being met. If in fact the Commission feels the intent is not being met, the applicant then has the right to appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals. City Engineer Durbin indicated that the applicant's calculations are based on less than 5 acres and there is more than that so those need to be recalculated. The curbs shown on the plans are rollover and code requires vertical curbs. The lot split plat creates an issue for the city. No matter how it is zoned, if the City approves a lot split, it would create a non-conforming lot and will need to be addressed. The applicant is also requested to submit a utility plat to the engineering department. Assistant Law Director O'Malley indicated that he spoke to the applicant's attorney to bring to their attention that the City wants their by-laws to clearly spell out the fact that the City will not provide any City services, as it is a private road. The Planning Commission recommends restrictions on future street or extension onto neighboring properties. He explained that Mr. Durbin referenced a lot split plat which has not been presented before the board and said it would be non-conforming under the current zoning or cluster zoning laws. Mr. Spalding questioned if there are requirements for condos sharing walls to carry insurance from the same company. Mr. O'Malley advised that the City is restricted to uphold the required laws but cannot add requirements. Safety Considerations: At the September 28th meeting, Planning Commission members wished to have input from the Fire Department regarding several safety issues raised. The Assistant Fire Chief provided a memo dated 10/4/04 indicating there are no significant site issues or concerns with the proposed development. 4