HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Jim Callaway
JaneKee ...~
Sabine Kuenzel ,
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
AuguSt 13, 1993
Milt Albetstadt development on Winter Park Drive
By now, you have both seen Milt's proposed site plan fortheduplex complex on Winter Park. It's a
rather innovative approach, which is great, but which also poses problems concerning the
application of our Zoning Ordinance. Before I go into the twoaltemative approaches we can take
in reviewing the plan, I would like to statethe sure things first:
1. Due to the fact that Milt is not using existing platted lot lines and will not plat new lot lines or
easements until a future date, his plan should go to the PR C. In this way, we will establish that this
project is a single building.plot, ensure cross. access and parking, and work out utility availability.
In fact, I think that unless a single building comes in on .a single platted .lot, we should take all
future building permit applications to PRC.
2. Engineeringwill.require.a detention facility, either in the parking lot or in the form of a pond.
3. I think that past policy allows us to view the site as a single building plot and ignore existing
platted lot lines. A replatthen will be required only if and when the individual parcels are sold off.
To avoid a Lincoln private access easement type . problem, we might want to consider requiring
some type .of maintenance agreement.at the time of platting.
And now 1 think there are two ways we could go with this. We could either view this as an
apartment project and require curbs, islands, landscaping, and parking lot setbacks. This would be
fairly easy for us, and we could apply the existing ordinance with little interpretive ingenuity. We
would require a setback from the Winter Park ROW of 25', and a rear setback of 25' from the
opposite end. Due to. the fact that this is a single building plot, no interior side setbacks would have
to be imposed other than 15' of separation between buildings.
We could also review this as we do other duplex developments, and impose R-2 standards. This
approach seems more consistent with policy . The applicant would then 110tbe required to provide
curbs, etc. We then need to decide where the front is on each "imaginary" lot. In this case, only 2
"lots" have frontage'ona street. I suppose we could use the access easement to determine the front
and side street of the other lots. But the access easement is not perfectly symmetrical; it runs along
two of the lots like a street does, but it goes right through the remaining lots. We could also use the
proposed lot dimensions to determine the front. Thenatrowend would then become the front. I
prefer this second method because it is consistent with our..: treatment of corner lots: and lots with
multiple frontage, and because it allows the front and back setback to be taken off of the depth of
the . lots .
These are our two choices, as 1 see it, in applying. In the first scenario, with complete site plan
review, the applicant provides site plan .requirements in exchange for setback flexibility. In the
second scenario, R-2 setbacks and minimum lot size restrictioIlsmustbe met, but there are no
curbing, landscaping, or island requirements.
I. know ybuare receiving this late in the week, but I. would like to get back with Milt before the end
of the day, so could you get me some input ASAP?