1988-08-10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . Minutes - Plan Commission Page 3 August 10, 1988 assume the cost of extending the pavement of Swarthmore Lane south into existing right-of-way thereby providing more street parking for both the new subdivision as well as the surrounding, existing neighborhood. A turn- around would also be paved by the city in the Swarthmore Lane right-of-way. Mr. Goldman also reviewed for Commission members the changes between the preliminary and final plats requested by the Plan Commission and City Council. The vacated portion of Swarthmore Lane north of Blancha Drive had been so designated. The location of the easement to MSD and the storm water drainage area had been approved by the City Forester. Easements to Union Electric had been removed from behind proposed Lots 6 and 7 to prevent disturbance of any large, valuable trees. Additional right-of-way at a width of 5 feet would be dedicated for City use around the perimeter of the Swarthmore Court turn-around. Mr. Goldman also noted that the proposed subdivision indentures included the provision required by City Council under the Site Plan approval of the townhomes which would provide that the subdivision trustees maintain the common area north of the homes in its natural state. Commission members posed several questions to the developers and city staff. Mr. Safe asked if the townhouse units would be owned in fee simple and how the common area could be accessed. Mr. Roufa replied that the townhomes and lots would be owned in fee simple and would not be condominium units. Mr. Roufa further explained that the common area could be accessed by the lots along the north side of the new street or through the IS-foot wide easement between Swarthmore Lane and Lot 15. He did state, however, that the developers would not and successor trustees should not encourage use of the common area which would increase litter or jeopardize the natural state of the common area. Chairman McCauley asked if the designated common area had also been rezoned to the single family district. Mr. Ollendorff replied that it had, but that because of its floodplain designation, it could not be developed for single family homes. Ms. Kreishman asked the developers if there was provision to amend the proposed indentures. She noted the apparent conflict between paragraph "PH of restriction #14 of the indentures and restriction #18 of same. After some discussion on the interpretation of these restrictions and the intent of the developers, members suggested that the developers eliminate restriction #18 and insert the word "therefore" after the word "continue" in the third line of paragraph P of restriction #14 and eliminate the words "for successive periods of fifteen (15) years" in the same paragraph. Mr. Rice expressed considerable concern with the lack of available on-street parking on the proposed Swarthmore Court. He expressed his opinion that the additional on-street parking to be achieved by the widening of Swarthmore Lane would not be adequate for the neighborhood. He asked Mr. Goldman what degree of discretion the Subdivision Ordinance provided for Plan Commission approval or denial of a final plat. Mr. Goldman replied that because the Commission had approved the preliminary plat, it seemed that the Commission's decision was a technical one based on compliance with the stated requirements for final plat approval. Mr. Rice remained unsure of the standard of review as did other members. Ms. Kreishman and Mr. Safe indicated that although they felt the plan was not a creditable one, it demonstrated compliance with the ordinance requirements.