Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Frolik stated it would be November for the rewritten Ordinance to be approved. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt suggested staff bring back information regarding the standards to allow sixteen <br />units. <br /> <br />Case#6: Proposed Ordinance to Amend Setback Requirements for Detached <br /> Accessory Buildings or Garages <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt closed the regular portion of the Planning Commission meeting at 9:46 p.m. in <br />order to reconvene the public hearing called to order on July 11, 2002. <br /> <br />Public Hearing <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt reconvened the public hearing at 9:46 p.m. <br /> <br />Presentation <br /> <br />Community Development Director Frolik explained that Section 9.11.02 of City Code states that <br />detached accessory structures may not be located closer to the front property line than the home <br />on the property. The City's most common variance request, with respect to detached accessory <br />buildings, pertains to this restriction. City Staff drafted an ordinance amendment to repeal the <br />requirement that restricts detached accessory buildings from being closer to the front property <br />line than the home for lots 1 acre or larger in size. The Planning Commission conducted a public <br />hearing regarding the proposed ordinance amendment on July 11, 2002. At that time, the <br />Planning Commission discussed whether or not the proposed threshold should be increased from <br />1 acre to 2.5 acres. The Commission continued the public hearing to the regular meeting in <br />August and requested additional information regarding the number of 1 acre versus 2.5 acre lots <br />in the community. Attached to this case is a map that has been prepared that reveals that there <br />are 3,489 lots that are 1 acre or less in size; 1,712 lots that are greater than 1 acre and less than <br />2.5 acres in size; and 696 lots that are 2.5 acres and greater in size. On July 11, the Commission <br />also noted that Staff had proposed changes to subdivisions 7, 8, 9 and 11 of Section 9.11.02 and <br />requested some supporting justification for those changes. That information has been prox/ided <br />in the case report. <br /> <br />Citizen Input <br /> <br />There was none. <br /> <br />Motion by Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Reeve, to close the public <br />hearing. <br /> <br />Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Nixt, Commissioners Johnson, Reeve, Kociscak, and <br />Watson. Voting No: None. Absent: Commissioner Brauer. <br /> <br />Planning Commission/August 29, 2002 <br /> Page 14 of 18 <br /> <br /> <br />