10-17-1988 Planning Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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