Laserfiche WebLink
MIHUTBS OP THE PIAMIIIHG COMNISSlCIi STIH6 OCTOBER 17, 1988 <br />Z0EIB6 FILE «1334-REBERS COHTIHUED <br />to Mr. Rebers with a few exceptions. Mr. Jarvis also asked for <br />feedback from the Planning Commission concerning the road. Mr. <br />Jarvis asked for clear direction as to whether the loop road was <br />preferred over the cul-de-sac. All seven Planning Commission <br />member indicated, by an informal vote, that they preferred a loop <br />road. <br />Mr. Jarvis proceeded by reporting that Mr. Rebers agreed <br />with items 1, 2, all easements would be prepared as part of the <br />preparation of the final plat, 3, 4, 5, and most of 6. Chairman <br />Kelley interjected that he wished to add another condition in the <br />subdivider's agreement that would address the preservation of <br />trees. He began by asking the Planning Commission members for <br />their feelings on disallowing any accessory structures on the <br />building pads. This would include second garages, gazebos, <br />tennis courts, swimming pools. Since the major argument in favor <br />of the rezoning was tree preservation, then he wanted to see that <br />the trees were in fact preserved. <br />Plannining Commission member Bellows believed that <br />paragraph "c" under item #6 addressed the topic of tree <br />preservation. Zoning Administrator Mabusth asked why the <br />proposed covenants did not address accessory structures. <br />Chairman Kelley apologized for straying from Mr. Jarvis's <br />explanation of what was acceptable under item #6. Mr. Jarvis <br />continued by saying that "a" was a problem, "b" was acceptable, <br />"c" he recommended a .25 FAR (floor/area ratio) maximum, "d" <br />would be acceptable if the language were modified to say "within <br />the .25 floating zone within the pad area, as opposed to an <br />absolute; "e" a 4' wire mesh-type fence is being proposed that <br />would blend in with the surroundings. Chairman Kelley asked Mr. <br />Jarvis if he had discussed the issue of the fence with those <br />neighbors that were concerned. Mr. Jarvis stated that he had <br />not. <br />Mr. Jarvis addressed paragraph "a". He stated that the <br />Planning Commission was confusing the pad area with the lot area. <br />In looking at the smallest lot, the lot area was 32,000 s.f. The <br />pad area would be 11,000 s.f. This would allow for setbacks on <br />each lot of 50' front and back, and 30' on each side. By using <br />the figures quoted, there would be 21,000 s.f. or just short of <br />2/3's of the lot preserved. Within the 11,000 s.f. of pad area, <br />he is requesting that overall limitation for development be a .25 <br />FAR. The FAR normally applied to the entire lot area. If the <br />it would allow for an 8,000 s.f. structure. That would mean a <br />footprint of 2,712 s.f. If a garage Is added, the ground cover <br />would be 3,528 s.f. All in all, there would be ground cover of <br />3,528 s.f. out of a total 32,000 s.f. lot, which is slightly <br />above 10% ground cover. Kelley asked for a definition of FAR. <br />Jarvis replied "floor area ration". Kelley observed that a one <br />story house could actually have ground cover of 8,000 s.f.