Agenda - Council - 06/11/2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

-10- Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Nixt, Board Members Johnson, Kociscak, and Brauer. Voting No: None. Absent: Board Members Reeve, Sweet, and Watson. PUBLIC HEARINGS/BOARD BUSINESS Case #1: Request for a Variance to Front Yard Setbacks in the Proposed Plat of Sunflower Ridge; Case of Oakwood Land Development Chairperson Nixt dosed the regular portion of the Board of Adjustment ~Mg at 7:25 p.m. in order to conduct the public hearing. .~. ~ ~ Public Hearing Chairperson Nixt called the public hearing to order at 7:25 p~)::'~' Co~u~ Development Director Frolik explained Oa~'D~i°pment is proposhg to plat and develop land west of State H~. 47 and~.no~h of Alpine'~;~or a tow~ome project. Ci~ Code establishes a 35 foot ~ont yard setbaC~ ~bm~public street ~}~-way for bulldogs ~ ~e R-3 Urban Residential District. %e ap~B~a~'~iS~()}~5~ng a 5~;~., vmance to have the tow~ouse u~ts set back a minimum of 30'~ket ~om' th~ ~b[ic .s~ee{~hght-of-way· ~e Ci~ recently adopted a new street policy for mu(~ple fa~t~::~}~d~n~developments. The policy requkes desi~s that utilize a~ }e~t one main pu~!i~ ~eet spine i~ough the development with private driveway collectors :extSng~g:,off: ~ ~. ..~.:~ :.~ of the pu~lic~:~., street. With the adoption of a street policy for use withim'::~ouse :~subdivisions~-':~any of the driveway accesses withn a tow~ouse plat will :be~h:to pubtic,~eets. ~ ord~:'Io acco~odate the 60-foot ~ght-of-way, the Pla~ng Co~i~{~n and Ci[y:}~~d~g '~r Chapter 9 Com~ee discussions, have previously reco~zed~.pos~ble~¢~ t~'~0C~:~0r lesser ~ont-yard setbacks. ~e recently adopted street policy fok:m~PI~ tinily developments does not address setbacks for tow~ome units along~¢:~ Streets. "g~ff feels ~at t~s is.~ oversight and should be addressed. ~e Ci~ is in the;P~d~3'f:~ding'~:Zo~ng and Subdivision Chapter of Ci~ Code to implement the newl~:,uPdated Com~Ke~ive ~-~?~:~Some of the amendments are under consideration at t~s m~g ~d include red~g the ~6nt yard setback in the medium densi~ residential d~smct ~:m 35 ~to 25 feet. ~s wig ensure a 25-foot dhveway ~d will ~ve a land owner ~e potential to ~e~,~e d~n~i, p~e~c6b~~d for t~ l~d. Ci, St~e~o~ends app~ov~ o~th~ vahan~. David Mo~, 154~5 ~ld Coun~ Road 5, questioned why the law isn't followed once it is set ~d why valances ~e ~en ~anted. Chairperson Nixt explained the Ordinance in place reflects what was required for the previous Comprehensive Plan, which didn't recognize townhome and medium density developments. As Board of Adjustment/May 2, 2002 Page 2 of 9 I I I I !, I I I I I I I I I I I I