02/12/2003 P&Z Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

1 • • Planning & Zoning Board January 22, 2003 Page 5 Page 4 -3, annexations clause was clarified. Sections 5 through 9 will be discussed at the February 12 P &Z meeting. Chair Schaps invited audience members to speak. Ann Boeckman, 6492 Tomahawk Trail, stated she wanted assurance that the Ordinance would not allow a property owner to have junk in their yard. She was concerned about a particular property. She asked what the repercussions were for violating the ordinance. Chair Schaps replied daily fines could be imposed if there was a violation of the ordinance. Mr. Smyser stated this was an issue the Building Inspector would deal with. He stated he would ask the Building Inspectors to look into this property. Mr. Rafferty made a MOTION to continue the public hearing to February 12, 2003. The motion was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 3 -0. Chair Schaps recessed the meeting at 7:51 p.m. and reconvened at 8:15 p.m. B. JAMES KEEFE, 6300 Rolling Hills Drive, Minor Subdivision & Variance Staff explained applicant was requesting minor subdivision approval of a two lot subdivision of a 27.47 acre parcel and combination of two remnant parcels with an existing 10 acre parcel. Approval of the minor subdivision will also require variances to (1) allow creation of lots that do not meet the minimum lot area requirements, (2) allow the creation of lots that do not meet the minimum lot width requirement; (3) allow the creation of lots that do not abut for their full frontage on a publicly dedicated street; and (4) to allow a private street. Staff stated in June, 2001, applicant contacted City staff requesting information regarding the potential subdivision of his property. Applicant was provided with the requirements of the R -X, Rural Executive District. In September, 2001, applicant met with the City Council to discuss the potential options for subdividing his property. He expressed at that time, in a letter dated September 19, 2001, that he would like to split off several 2.5 acre parcels from his property due to the economic hardship he was currently experiencing. The Council expressed the need for additional information before a decision could be made. City staff prepared a memo to the City Council, dated September 28, 2001, identifying issues with regard to the proposed subdivision and listed options to be explored, including the potential for a clustered development using the Planned Development Overlay District (PDO) requirements. The memo was distributed to applicant. DRAFT MINUTES