Laserfiche WebLink
<br />City Code and the Comprehensive Plan are currently inconsistent in terms of the Critical River <br />'Overlay district. As stated in the DNR response, the DNR records show that minimum lot width <br />in the overlay district is 125 feet, not 90 feet as City Code indicates. Staff anticipates possible <br />code revisions to the overlay district upon completion of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update. <br /> <br />Due to the fact that this parcel is unique to the neighborhood in that it is adjacent to the B-2 <br />Business District, in close proximity to the border of the overlay district and inconsistencies in <br />interpretation of the overlay district, staff recommends approval of the variance. <br /> <br />Citizen Input <br /> <br />Mr. Tim Holm explained the only variance they are asking for is this one. They either meet or <br />exceed all of the other requirements. He did not think they are creating any problems that he can <br />see. <br /> <br />Chairperson Van Scoy asked when it comes to inconsistencies between the Comprehensive Plan, <br />City Code and the Critical River Overlay, the DNR Standards, which takes precedence. <br /> <br />Management Intern Gladhill stated they will generally default to City Code as the rule to go by. <br /> <br />Management Intern Gladhill stated if the DNR does not certify this, then the variance cannot be <br />issued. <br /> <br />Board Member Brauer stated that it was his understanding that the DNR standards take <br />precedent. <br /> <br />Staff discussed the discrepancies between the City Code and the DNR regulations with the <br />Board. <br /> <br />Board Member Hunt asked if there were other requirements by the DNR beside lot size. <br /> <br />Management Intern Gladhill stated the lot meets with all other DNR requirements. They are only <br />deficient in the lot width. <br /> <br />Chairperson VanScoy asked what the hardship would be to approve a variance. <br /> <br />Management Intern Gladhill stated they took the approach that the rezoning to R-l imposed by <br />the Council imposed stricter standards than the owner could comply with. All the previous <br />requirements would have complied with the rezoning to a PUD request and those terms would <br />have been acceptable but the Council did not think multi-family was appropriate there. <br /> <br />Motion by Board Member Levine, seconded by Board Member Van Scoy, to close the public <br />hearing. <br /> <br />Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Van Scoy, Board Members Levine, Brauer, <br />Cleveland, and Hunt. Voting No: None. Absent: Board Member Nixt. <br /> <br />Board of Adjustment/April 3, 2008 <br />Page 3 of 4 <br />