1986-01-08 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e Minutes - Plan Commission Page 4 January 8, 1986 commercial and residential uses were not necessarily new to the city. Ms Schuman stated that the proposal was a "floating" zone and the zoning regulations would not be imposed on properties which did not have development proposals specifically tailored to them. She pointed out that this factor and that of the detailed regulations proposed for the district would eliminate "worst-case" zoning. Chairman Hamilton called on commission members to make suggestions and further revisions to the proposed draft. Mr. McCauley questioned the elimination of separate standards for different types of apartment buildings, such as garden apartments and elevator apartments. Chairman Hamilton noted that at times, separate regulations for elevator apartment districts were desirable because they allowed for greater setbacks for taller buildings. Mr. McCauley stated that one way to deal with this problem would be to link height with the setback standard. Ms Cook noted that sometimes building codes determine appropriate setbacks because of fire safety standards. Ms Schuman noted that most of the multi-family development proposals in Clayton were no more than four stories. Mr. Rice proposed putting the setback standards for this proposal in the Transitional Yard requirement section, because it was the transitional yards that would be of most concern to the neighborhood. Mr. Ollendorff noted that greater side yard requirements could force developers to plan taller buildings, but that there was also a Floor Area Ratio requirement in the proposed district regulations. Mr. Rice asked if there was a particular urgency in refining the proposal this evening to be approved for City Council. Mr. McCauley stated that there was really no need for delay and that the proposed regulations should be before City Council so that Council members could better review Mr. Paul Londe's proposal for the Chelsea Suites on North and South Road. Many suggestions were made as to how to refine the transitional yard requirement. Mr. Ollendorff wanted to be sure that developers would realize that the minimum standards listed in the proposed regulations were not maximums required and that developers could be required to provide more yard or more landscaping if necessary. Mr. Rice made a motion that Section 34-39.7e of the Planned Development Distrtict Proposal be amended to read: "Where a side or rear lot line coincides with a side or rear lot line of any lot in an adjacent residential zoning district, then a landscaped yard of at least 15 feet in width shall be provided along such a lot. Where a building exceeds three stories or 50 feet in height, whichever is less, then a landscaped yard of at least 20 feet in width shall be provided. In addition, for any use which involves the construction of a new structure or the expansion of an existing structure, a decorative wall or fence at least 6 feet but not more than 8 feet in height shall be provided in such transitional yard along the property line." Ms Schuman seconded the motion which passed by a vote of 6-0.