Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/23/2021

Home

Commissioner Walker aye Commissioner Anderson aye Commissioner Peters aye Chairperson Bauer aye Motion Carried. Chairperson Bauer noted that the second request is related to the preliminary plat and asked staff to display the list of contingencies that were included in the staff report. Commissioner VanScoy stated that he is a little confused on how the transition can have common ownership and how it is configured with the lot. He stated that the applicant stated that the transition area is currently part of the lot. City Planner Anderson stated that as the applicant proposed, the density transition corridor is part of the individual lots, but City Code states that corridor should be held common ownership, such as a separate entity like an HOA. He confirmed that changes would be needed in order to meet that requirement of the Code. He stated that each individual lot should meet the lot width and area requirements, separate from the density transition area. Commissioner VanScoy commented that if the layout is configured in that manner, the density corridor should not impact the lot depth. City Planner Anderson stated that if laid out in that manner from the start, there would not be an issue. He stated that originally,these lots were proposed at 65 feet and under that scenario the lots would have met the minimum lot size requirement and there was sufficient spacing for the density transitioning corridor to be held in separate parcel. He stated that the minimum lot size is larger for 80-foot-wide lots and therefore with the separate density transitioning corridor, 80 foot lots in that area could not meet the minimum lot size requirement. Commissioner Anderson stated that this would mean yards would be smaller in that area and therefore a variance request would need to come back in the future to consider those smaller lots. City Planner Anderson stated that the applicant could choose to revise the plan in order to show the required minimum lot size. He noted that a resident did suggest that a lot or two be removed in order to support meeting those requirements. He stated that if the applicant chose not to do that, they could come back to request a variance. Mr. Tabone stated that he would like the ability to continue to work with staff on the density transitioning standards to determine if the intent can be met without dropping lots. He stated that this is not the first time they have dealt with a buffer, wetland, trees, or screening and therefore believed there were additional options outside of dropping home sites. He stated that they have already dropped a few townhomes and they want to ensure the project would be feasible in delivering a market need. Planning Commission/August 26, 2021 Page 12 of 26