2021_0222_CCPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

the same thing in other places. Her concern is if the City is setting a precedent with 50 this or is this different enough to not be concerned. 51 52 Mr. Lloyd explained the City does not have a clear definition yet, or a clear way of 53 distinguishing what is a shared driveway, what is a street, public or private, and 54 certainly establishing a definition like that and incorporating that into the City Code 55 will be a way to clarify that. The way that staff has looked at it so far is the width of 56 this shared driveway satisfies the fire lane width minimum but does not conform to 57 any street width. There have not been any concerns by Public Works, the Fire 58 Department, Police Department, or any other City Departments about this driveway 59 being less than the width of the street. 60 61 Member Schaffhausen asked if the Planning Commission needed to make some sort 62 of definition regarding this or is staff working on one. 63 64 Mr. Lloyd explained a definition would be helpful, but staff really has not discussed it 65 yet. 66 67 Member Pribyl indicated given the concerns regarding the access and screening at the 68 neighbor’s property, she wondered about the thirty-foot utility easement on the other 69 side of homes. Would this be required or was the developer able to make it work. 70 She wondered if the easement could be twenty-five feet and move everything over to 71 make more room for a landscape buffer on the one side as an option. 72 73 Mr. Lloyd explained that could be an option and staff could talk to the developer 74 about it. He did not believe there is a minimum width for the easements. He thought 75 it was partly driven by what the utility infrastructure is and how deep it is. He noted 76 the shared driveway is on top of the utility easement as well so it is something that 77 could be driven over by these homeowners or neighboring homeowners. 78 79 Member Pribyl indicated she was talking about the easement on the other side. 80 81 Chair Gitzen thought there was a minimum rear yard setback of 30 feet. 82 83 Mr. Lloyd indicated that was correct. 84 85 Member Pribyl asked if the homeowners could ask for a variance to deal with that. If 86 the utilities were twenty-five feet that would be accommodating to the neighbors in 87 the future. 88 89 Mr. Lloyd explained the location of the homes, like the driveway and everything else 90 are not a part of the plat approval and if the lot lines are approved in the plat and the 91 easements are also approved in the plat and easements are changed with homes 92 shifting rearward in the future as it is developed remains an option. 93 94 Member McGehee was not sure it is a good policy to make policy definitions on the 95 fly now. There was a policy and if it is insufficient then she was not sure if now is 96 the right time to back pedal. She liked Member Pribyl’s suggestion for solutions to 97 this, but she would like to have a firmer solution that what the City has at the moment 98 RCA Attachment E Page 2 of 28