Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />MAY 26, 2004 <br />study should be done of this issue to determine if a text amendment was <br />appropriate. Fahey felt that rather than allow the five foot setback <br />requested as part of the Hidden Acres plat, if the Council thinks this is a <br />good idea, the reduced setback should be offered to all single-family <br />residential development in the City. <br />Gordie Howe explained his request, noting that he prefers not to construct <br />the homes with front-loaded garages. <br />Fahey stated that he understood the request, but his position is that this <br />should not be something offered exclusively to the Hidden Acres plat. <br />Fahey noted that prior to 1980, the City allowed fora 5-foot setback on <br />one side yard. In 1980, the City changed to Code to require a 10-foot side <br />yard setback on both side yards. <br />Mr. Fahey introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br />RESOLUTION NO. 2004-5-102 -TABLING ACTION ON THE <br />REQUEb'T FOR A CONDITIONAL U.SE PERMIT TOR A <br />RESIDENTIAL. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ALLOWING A <br />UARIANC'E IS SIDEYARD SETBACK AS PART OT THE HIDDEN <br />ACREb` PLAT, AND REFERRING THE ISSUE ]SACK TO THE <br />PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY STAFF FOR FURTHER <br />REVIEW AND ANALYSIS BASED ON TIIIS EVENING'S <br />DISCUSSION <br />The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Blesener. <br />Ayes (5) Fahey, Blesener, Montour, Anderson, LaValle. <br />Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. <br />CUP & Fahey opened the continuation of the Public Hearing to consider an <br />VARIANCE- Amendment to Conditional Use Permit to modify the site plan for <br />3165-3167 Valor Enterprises and a Variance from the City's parking <br />SPRUCE requirements. It was noted that the Planning Commission has <br />STREET- recommended denial of both the CUP Amendment and the <br />VALOR Variance. <br />ENTERPRISES <br />Lori Peterson, Valor Enterprises, informed the Council that there was <br />some confusion on the part of City staff in that on May 11°i the City <br />Administrator and the Code Enforcement Officer visited the Valor <br />property and informed them that a revised site plan had not been <br />submitted. Staff later contacted Valor tellin~ them they found the site <br />plan. Peterson indicated that at the May 13" Planning Commission <br />meeting the emphasis was on the fact that Valor had not hired an <br />independent engineer to do a drainage study of the property. Peterson <br />indicated that she was not aware that this was something Valor had been <br />]0 <br />