Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Planning Commission 1987-02-17BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission February 17, 1987 Commission; Attending: Also Attending: Absent: Chairman Al Sager, Members David Barker, Duane Blair, Mark Brown, George Hix, Steve Komito, Richard Wood Chairman Sager, Members David Barker, Duane Blair, Mark Brown, Steve Komito, Richard Wood Town Administrator Hill, Town Engineer PVidmer, Town Planner Stamey, Secretary Jones Member Hix 1.Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting held January 20, 1987 were submitted and approved. DEVELOPMENT PLANS 2.a. Development Plan 87-1, Hannigan Condominiums, Lot 3, Block 5, First Addition to Lone Pine Acre^ — “ Mr. Paul Kochevar, representing Richard and Kathleen Hannigan, presented the aforementioned Development Plan. Applicants are proposing to construct nine dwelling units in four separate buildings. Planner Stamey summarized the staff report. On January 16, 1987, the Board of Adjustment granted a variance to allow a 10' side and rear setback, with the exception that a minimum side setback of 15' be maintained parallel to Lot 1. ^^a-nner Stamey acknowledged receipt of the following correspondence from referral agencies: Light and Power............................02/03/87 Public Service Co.......................01/30/87 Fire Department............................02/09/87 Town Attorney................................02/11/87 Town Engineer................................02/13/87 Public Service Company advised in their letter that it will be necessary to dedicate eight feet minimum width utility easements adjoining both sides of the 24' paved drive from Olympian Lane, if the developer desires natural gas service. Mr. Kochevar advised that gas service was not being planned. Fire Chief Jack Rumley recommended the water main size be increased and a hydrant be installed at Raven and Olympian Lane because tests indicate that inadequate fire flow presently exists. Town Attorney White advised in his letter that nonconforming density rules will apply for multifamily uses until January 1, 1992. Any building permit applied for after that date would be in violation of Section 17.20.080 (1) (c). Town Engineer Widmer stated in his letter that fire flow would be a problem but if the developer provides adequate fire protection prior to issuance of a building permit, the Water Department would not object to approval of this development plan. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission - February 17, 1987 - Page Two Mr. Kochevar advised that the developer would provide adequate fire protection. Planner Stamey suggested that building height restrictions for this lot and landscaping along Lot 1 be shown on the Development Plan. Member Blair moved that Development Plan 87-1 be approved with the following conditions: 1. Show building height restriction for this lot. 2. Developer to provide adequate fire protection prior to issuance of first building permit. 3. Water service be connected to 4" line along the east lot line. 4. Development phasing be changed to reflect that all building permits would have to be applied for by January 1, 1992. Member Brown seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Wehr Storage SPECIAL REVIEW 3.a. Special Review and Development Plan 87-2, Warehouse, Lots 5 & 6, DeVille Subdivision Mr. Bill Vdn Horn represented the owner, Jim Wehr, and presented the development plan. Half of the building will be divided into six spaces which will be utilized for material storage for construction related businesses. The other half will be for lumber storage. Planner Stamey summarized the staff report and noted that the parking demand could be increased in the future, depending on the use and operation of the building. He stated a note should be placed on the Development Plan which would provide for the construction of additional parking. He also addressed the issue of impervious coverage. The site has an average slope of 10%. The basic coverage limitation is 70% or 51,380 sq. ft. The applicant's engineer indicates an impervious coverage of 53,448 sq. ft. Expansion of the parking area to the south and paving of future parking area could increase the total impervious coverage to approximately 85% of the site. Planner Stamey suggested tree plantings along Woodstock Drive be installed and the area between the edge of asphalt and curb line be seeded. Also since the proposed building straddles an interior lot line, an amended plat of Lots 5 and 6 will need to be submitted prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Chairman Sager questioned the intended use of this building.Mr. Van Horn stated it would be a warehousing operation with rental storage space for plumbers and contractors. Member Brown moved that this Special Review and Development Plan 87-2 be favorably recommended to the Town Board for approval with the following conditions: 1. Increased impervious coverage is approved provided street tree plantings along Woodstock Drive be installed, a minimum of one tree per 30 linear ft. The area between the edge of asphalt and curb line should also be seeded. 2. A note be added to the Development Plan which would address construction of additional parking. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission - February 17, 1987 - Page Three 3. An amended plat of Lots 5 and 6 be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 4. Modify drainage study to include a two year storm and direct outlets away from adjacent structures. 5. Show drainage details on Development Plan. 6. Show off-site drainage entering the property and how it will be carried across the site. 7. Provide emergency overflow protected by suitable rip-rap for detention pond. 8. Add engineer's stamp to drainage study. Member Wood seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. 4. PUBLIC HEARING 4.a. Public Hearing Regarding Changes in Zoning Ordinance; Setbacks, Nonconforming Buildings and Development Plan Applicability Chairman Sager opened the Public Hearing, which was for the purpose of considering possible modifications to; 1 Building Setbacks, Section 17.20.040, Subparagraph B. 2. Alteration to nonconforming buildings. Section 17.16.040, Subparagraph F. 3. Development Plan Applicability, Section 17.36.010, Subparagraph H., 2. Handout materials were available for public distribution. Planner Stamey reviewed the setback requirements under the new zoning regulation as compared to the previous requirements. The new regulation requires a 25' building setback from all property lines, except if lot width or depth is less than 125', 20% of the width or depth of the lot (e.g., side setback on a lot 100' wide would be 20' , or 10' on a lot 50' wide). The possible modification would be to reduce side and rear setback requirements, as previously permitted, except to require a minimum 25' setback when two—family, multi-family, or commercial development abut an Estate District. The second area of discussion centered on allowing alteration to nonconforming buildings, in certain instances, without requiring Board of Adjustment review. A possible modification would be to allow such alterations provided the Town Planner and Building Inspector determine that such alteration does not increase the "extent of nonconformity." The third area of review considered development plan applicability. The term "residential subdivision" would be replaced with the term "developments", and buildings with more than three guest units would also be added. Language to be added would also clarify that development plan review for single-family or two-family residences would not be required when said residence is the only building on a lot. Public discussion followed. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission - February 17, 1987 - Page Four Mr. Roland Retrum spoke to the Commission objecting to the changing of the 25' setback requirement. He would like to see the 25' setback retained but exempt nonconforming uses from this requirement. Mr. Bill Van Horn spoke regarding these items. Mr. Van Horn made the following points; o The 251 setback requirement is appropriate for new areas being subdivided and developed, but there should be some relief for older areas. o There should be a mechanism to reduce Board of Adjustment review. o Development plan review discourages people from doing projects. After further discussion. Chairman Sager suggested the Commission continue to review this area of the new zoning regulation. Member Brown made the motion that this hearing be continued to the next Planning Commission meeting on March 17 and Member Barker seconded the motion. Vote was unanimous in favor of continuing the Public Hearing until March 17, 1987. 5. SET PUBLIC HEARING 5.a. Set Public Hearings for Planning Commission and Town Board to Consider Request for Rezoninq of Tract A, Prospect Estates Addition from E-Estate to R-S Residential. “ Motion was made by Member Barker to set public hearing dates on this request as follows: Planning Commission - March 17, 1987 Town Board - April 14, 1987 Member Brown seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned. cretary