Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993 04 07 Planning and Zoning Board Regular Minutes ,- .-. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes Wednesday, April 07, 1993 BOARD MaBERS: David Hopkins, Chainman, Present Grace Anne Glavin, Vice Chainman, Absent David McLeod, Present Tam Brown, Present John Ferring, Present CITY OFFICIALS: Greg Kern, Planner Whitney Moran, Bldg. Donald LeBlanc, L.D.C. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. The APproval of Minutes of March 03. 1993 - Ferring moved to approve the minutes of March 03, 1993 with the following changes: Last sentence should read: Ferring questioned if Hopkins knew the name of the firm that was previously selected by the Commission and Hopkins stated that he did not know. Seconded by Brown. Vote: McLeod-abstain(absent fram that meeting); Hopkins-aye; Brown-aye; and Ferring-aye. Motion carried. The APproval of Minutes of March 17. 1993 Brown moved to approve the minutes of March 17, 1993. McLeod. Vote: Ferring-aye; Brown-aye; Hopkins:abstain; aye. Motion carried. Seconded by and McLeod- Hopkins suggested that the Board review the remaining LDRs under a workshop agenda instead of regular Planning and Zoning Board agenda since the purpose is for brainstorming to put a plan together. Discussion ensued regarding the need for motions on issues in a regular meeting versus using workshop to review and rrake changes to the document with a consensus vote. McLeod recommended that in the regular Planning and Zoning meeting, the Board will have a vote on specific issues, specific chapters, and vote on agreement prior to sending LDRs to City Commission for approval. The Board agreed with Hopkins recommendation to put the review of LDRs under a workshop agenda. Hopkins expressed his concern regarding the caTl>lete of the review of these LDRs through the guidance of this Board versus using outside consultants. The Board agreed to continue the in--house developnent of the LCRs. "..., ~ Planning and Zoning Board Minutes Wednesday, April 07, 1993 Page 2 Land Development Re~ulations Review - Chapter 2 Kern reported back to the Board regarding the issue of fencing of utility easements. He researched other city codes and found no provision in their UDRs. Kern asked for direction on this issue. Ferring asked about the issue of homeowners covenants and how they are addressed in the LORs. Kern pointed out that per previous conversion Section 1.04.02 states the following: This Code is not intended to repeal, abrogate, or impair any existing easements, covenants, or deed restrictions. However, where this Code conflicts with or overlaps other regulations, whichever imposes the more stringent restrictions shall prevail. Ferring questioned the issue of drainage easements being addressed under this section. Kern answered that it should be added in the heading to read Utility~rainage Easement. McLeod asked for input fram the Building Official on the issue of iten (2) regarding "obtains wr i tten approval fram the owner of the easement". Mr. "Whi tey" Moran stated that it had been his experience that if the utility was underground that the City was the owner of the easement, and if the utility was aboveground that the utility was the owner of the easement. McLeod asked if perhaps a fonn could be developed by the City to assist the homeowner in obtaining this approval fram the utility company. Moran said he would investigate the fonn issue. Discussion ensued regarding the obligation of reinstalling a fence that is disassembled by the utility company, "hold hannless" agreement between the utility and property owner, and enforcement of this issue with regards to brick wall. Kern was directed by the Board to readdress this section on utility easements, especially with regards to the responsibility being the homeowners or utility company, and report back the findings to the Board. Kern reported that concerning the issue of fencing Conservation Easements, there are no provisions for access to these areas because the easement is established for preservation not recreational use. Kern explained the changes made to the Penmissible Land Uses by Classification Table 2.03.031 starting on Page 2-5. McLeod requested in the Coding section at the bottom the addition of a shaded black wi th explanation of "Not Allowed". The Board agreed. Kern discussed with the Board the staff's feelings on Section 2.04.021 Accessory Apartments on Page 2-21. Discussion ensued regarding the definition and Kern requested that this section be eliminated because it is not what the City staff's feels is appropriate because it would promote the renting of an apartment within the principal building. The Board agreed. - -.... Planning and Zoning Board Minutes Wednesday, April 07, 1993 Page 3 Land Development Regulations Review - Chapter 3 Kern explained the intent of this chapter. The overlay zone imposes addition restrictions on the Land Use Classifications. Same cities classify conservation areas as overlay zones, however, the City elected to state it as a land use in our Camp Plan. Kern stated that even though there are presently no historic districts and landmarks in the City, this section will provide for a provision for the future. Brown stated, that upon reading this chapter and having experience with historic landmarks himself, he found it complete. The Board recommended no changes. The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ~~~~~ Recording Secretary 08 Apr it 1993