Laserfiche WebLink
I <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I· <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />Zoning Administrator Frolik stated that the developer of Cedar Hills is requesting final plat <br />approval bf the second addition, which is in conformance with the approved preliminary <br />plat and ~phasing plan from 1990. This second phase of Cedar Hills consists of an <br />addition~ 33' lots. All the lots meet the minimum width and area requirements, the <br />improvenlents are proposed to be installed as a private development project. <br /> <br />City Engineer ~Iankowski reviewed the street layout. In accordance with the approved <br />preliminary plat, all lots would have access onto Tungsten Way N.W. However, the City <br />had reeei,~ed an application for Sunfish Square, a subdivision of single family, multi-family <br />and bus,ess lots on the 40-acre parcel adjacent to the southwesterly 500 feet of Cedar <br />Hills. In .lieu of these development plans for that property, it is Staff's recommendation <br />that the sOUtherly portion of Tungsten Way be redesigned with a through street extension to <br />the west into the Sauter property. Mr. Jankowski explained the benefits of this street <br />reconfigutation. <br /> <br />Mr. Tom Gallagher of Astleford felt he was doing everything he could to abide by the <br />contract, with the City but this street reconfiguration and the proposed rezoning of the <br />property represented a change in the contract and he felt he was being negatively impacted <br />by someoiae else (development of Sunfish Square). <br /> <br />Mr. Jankowski explained that the rezoning would be made to coincide with Mr. <br />Gallaghefs zoning. <br /> <br />Mr. Gallagher did not totally agree with the street reconfiguration and felt that these <br />changes Would delay his development. He also felt that the changes were going to cost him <br />more money and asked that the City consider cost-share or have the other developer put that <br />amount in escrow. <br /> <br />A lengthy discussion ensued regarding a possible cost share, etc., and whether or not the <br />changes re, commended by Staff were fair. <br /> <br />Consensus of the Council was that City Staff should continue to work with Mr. Gallagher <br />regarding the street connection. Council scheduled a special meeting for Wednesday, June <br />2, 1993 to discuss this ease further. <br /> <br />Case //6: Report from the Personnel Committee <br /> <br />There was no Personnel Committee meeting held earlier. <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />Ie <br /> <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />Case gS: Discuss the Possible Change of Side Yard Setbacks from Ten <br /> Feet to Five Feet <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich stated that the City has offered to schedule a Board of Adjustment <br />meeting for June 7, 1993 to consider Tony Emmerich's request to change the side yard <br />setbacks rfrom 10 feet to five feet. City Council would not have to act on this issue unless <br />someone Wants to appeal the Board of Adjustment's decision. <br /> <br />Mr. Tony Emmerich stated he would be pleased if the City Council would recommend that <br />the Board ~)f Adjustment grant his request. <br /> <br />Motion by: Couneilmember Peterson and seconded by Mayor Gilbertson to recommend that <br />the Board ~of Adjustment grant a variance for the setback number on the garage side from <br />10 feet to six feet for Tony Emmerieh for Amber Ridge Subdivision and that the ordinance <br />be amended changing the setback requirements to six feet on the garage side in the urban <br />area. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Gilbertson, Councilmembers Peterson, Beyer and <br />Zimmerrnan. Voting No: None. Abstain: CouneilmemberHardin. <br /> ~ City Council/May 25, 1993 <br /> Page 7 of 9 <br /> <br /> <br />