1989-01-25 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . Minutes - Plan Commission Page 2 January 25, 1989 Chairman McCauley called for the Planning Director's report on the subdivision request. Mr. Goldman responded that sidewalks would have to be provided on both sides of each proposed street and a specific prohibition on access to Lots I, 9, 10, 11 and 12 directly from North and South Road should be a condition of plat approval. It is doubtful whether the County Highway Department would permit driveway curb cuts off North and South, but the prohibition should be explicit. The building line setbacks for Lots 5 through 12 were still in question since a 50-foot right-of-way had been indicated for the extension of Lionsgate Drive. Mr. Goldman stated that the front yard setback for these lots was currently shown at thirteen feet without the developer reducing the buildable area of the lots. Commission members had a number of questions for Mr. Hall and Mr. Rufkahr. Ms. Kreishman expressed her concern about proper provision for drainage in the rear yards of the proposed lots. Mr. Hall indicated that run-off would be picked up at the street pavement and directed into the underground system. Chairman McCauley asked planning staff if the proposed 13-foot front yard setback met the Subdivision Ordinance and Zoning Code regulations. Ms. Elwood responded that the Zoning Code required a minimum 25 foot front yard building setback and the Subdivision Ordinance followed this minimum standard. In response to a question by the developer, Ms. Elwood responded that the front yard setbacks recently approved in the Preliminary Plat for the University Place Subdivision were distinguishable because the property is zoned "PR-O"-Planned Residential-Office and the development was proposed as a planned unit. Mr. Hall and Mr. Rufkahr asked if it were possible for the Plan Commission to vary the front yard setback requirement. Ms. Elwood indicated that the variance procedure of the Subdivision Ordinance required a showing by the proponent of the subdivision of "unusual difficulties or hardship" in meeting the subdivision regulations. Mr. Rufkahr stated that because the rectangles shown by dashed lines indicated the buildable area of the lots, a 25-foot setback would allow only a house with a 30 foot depth. As most of his house plans had at least a 38-foot depth, the 25-foot setback requirement presented him with a hardship. In the alternative, Mr. Rufkahr requested a variance of the 30-foot rear yard setback requirement. Mr. Marsh and Ms. Kreishman asked if the adjacent single family lots to the west and south were of a comparable size, width and depth to those proposed. Mr. Goldman stated that the 50-foot dimension at the building line was consistent with the surrounding area as was a 28-foot-by-40-foot building footprint. Ms. Kreishman asked if, as a potential solution, the street pavement had to be in the center of the right-of-way. This way, one lot on each side of the street could be dropped and the buildable area of the remaining lots increased. Both Ms. Kreishman and Mr. Rice expressed that the developer's existing plans for a deeper house than would fit on the lot under the zoning regulations did not adequately demonstrate unusual difficulty or hardship. After further discussion, Mr. Kendall moved that the Plan Commission approve the Amended Preliminary Plat of Amherst Place dated January II, 1989, subject to the following conditions: 1. The status of all existing easements shall be resolved before submission of the final plat for approval. Only current or proposed and accepted easements shall be shown on the final plat. 2. Sidewalks shall be provided along both sides of all proposed streets.