12/14/2004 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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. 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 the Commission does not feel the intent is being met, the applicant has the right to appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals. City Engineer Durbin indicated that the applicant's detention 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 in that no matter how it is zoned, if the City approves a split, it would create a non-conforming lot and will need to be addressed. Applicant is requested to submit a utility plat to the engineering department. Assistant Law Director O'Malley indicated that he spoke to the applicant's attorney indicating 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 can recommend restrictions or 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 this issue is not subject to Planning Commission recommendations. Applicant's presentation: Mr. Urbanick with Elmstreet Properties apologized for the mix-up in not having the plans submitted prior to the meeting. Mr. Koeth advised that the Board to assist the applicants and ensure they receive all required plans prior to their meetings. Mr. Urbanick reviewed that all the condominiums have a blanket insurance policy which covers all the exterior walls. Each owner is required to cover the interior walls and personal belongings in accordance to state laws. The road and lighting issues were the main issues from the last meeting. Their intent is to install both CEI lights and mailboxes with lights with Planning Commissions approval. Mr. Urbanick stated the 72 inch pipe shows 4 feet of fill over the pipe. If the pipe diameter changes to 6.5 or 7 feet, it should not affect the overall design. Most engineering issues are subject to County requirements. The bylaws will indicate whose responsibility is streets, trash and landscaping issues. Mr. Johnson indicated they would like to put sidewalks in, however, being that this is a private subdivision and is not sure if the code requires sidewalks on both sides of the street. If that is the case, they would meet the requirement. Mr. Johnson informed Ms. Wenger that the lighting was approved by the Postmaster. They will also install street lights as well. All wiring will be underground. Ms. Wenger recapped that the Architectural Review Board recommended that the mailboxes not have lights on them, but rather place them further back to prevent vandalism. Mr. Johnson, said they are currently installing them in a subdivision in another city and they are beautiful. Mr. Koeth indicated that he would like to see photos of mailbox lighting from their other sites. He further asked who is responsible for maintenance if breakage occurs. Mr. Johnson indicated it would be the homeowners association. The curbs and roads are the responsibility of the association. Mr. Johnson said blacktop repairs are more cost effective than 5