06-23-2004 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL JUNi'; 23, 2004 The Council noted the Fire Chief's and Fire Marshal's position that a minimum of a 15-foot separation be maintained between structures. The City Planner noted that the Planning Commission found acceptable the fact that under the proposed Text Amendment providing for a five foot and ten foot side yard setback separation, the result could be two five foot setbacks abutting for a building separation often feet. Fahey questioned what has changed since the Zoning Code was adopted in 1980 that warrants the change in side yard setbacks iu the R-1 ,District. Fahey suggested that he is sure at the time of initial adoption, the Fire Department supported the 10-foot side yard setback. Fahey stated that he understands that from a development standpoint, a smaller side yard setback would allow for increased density. However, we was not excited about changing the setback. Blesener pointed out that the Fire Chief and Fire Marshal have indicated that they could support a I S-foot building separation Blesener indicated that he did not support a change that could result in two abutting five-foot setbacks resulting in a l0 foot building separation. Blesener indicated that he was more comfortable addressing the issue wider a i'UD to allow the City control over the layout allocation of the five-foot setbacks. Blesener noted that the issue for Masterpiece Homes is not one of increasing density pointing out that their proposed lots are wider than the City's minimum lots. Blesener noted that the homes of today are considerably larger, while lot sizes have remained relatively the same. Therefore, the decreased side yard setback is an issue. Again, Blesener indicated that he would prefer to address the issue in a PUD for Hidden Acres rather than with a Text Amendment. Fahey noted that in the past the City has not used a PU,D to get at~ound setback requirements. Fahey suggested that issuing the PUD for Hidden Acres to allow fa' a reduced setback could result in other property owners making the same request. Fahey also noted that the Council has denied Variance requests for reduced setbacks. Fahey suggested that the issue might be that the proposed homes are too big for the lots. Anderson noted that the lots can be developed without the reduced setback, the issue is how much of the garage does the City want to be out in front of the house. Anderson felt the question for the Council was what does it want the City to look like. Anderson agreed that a 10-foot separation between structw'es was too small. He noted that Little Canada has large lots and an open space feel about it. Anderson felt that should be preserved. Anderson stated that it was not a matter of Mr. Howe building smaller houses, it was a matter of what the houses would look like. 2