CCP 01-13-2009 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

parking lot setback in the front yard along Palmer Drive. in general, the Commission felt a hardship had not been presented but there was support to allow reduced setbacks if they were consistent with the setbacks of Brighton Village, located just across Palmer Drive. After discussions with the City Attorney, it was determined that the best legislative approach would be to establish an overlay area. This overlay area allows the City to determine which properties could develop/redevelop with setbacks consistent with Brighton Village without taking the risk of approving unlawful Variances and without the risk of spot-(re)zoning. Zisla asked staff to explain the difference between a permitted variation and a special variation. Gundlach replied a permitted variation does not require any amenities to be given to the City and would automatically allow a ten foot setback, while there is a requirement for amenities in a special variation. Zisla replied that he is uncomfortable with applying a ten foot set back on every property within overlay, when many of them have not been reviewed to see if it's appropriate. Baker stated that after viewing the extensive amenities that Brighton Village incorporated in their development, he does not believe the City should allow a reduced set back without gaining any enhancements. He added he is not comfortable allowing a building to be within a ten foot setback and this would detract from the other set backs within the City. Gundlach replied that the retail strip mall set back is ten feet from the frontage road and Champps has a zero foot building set back to the shared parking area in Brighton Village. Howard asked if staff could explain the amenities that were provided in the Brighton Village development. Gundlach gave a brief overview of the amenities that were provided through the Brighton Village PUD. Zisla recommended approval of an ordinance with a change requiring enhancements, when it is feasible, to all sites within the overlay. This omits all permitted variations. Howard echoed Zisla's comments and believes the area should be dealt with as whole. Baker agreed with the change in the proposed ordinance that would require only special variations within the overlay district; however he believes that enhancements should be mandatory and it is unclear that enhancements can be given with all properties included in the overlay. Motion by Baker, second by Zisla to CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 4ayes, 0 nays. MOTION APPROVED. Motion by Zisla, second by Danger to Recommend the Council ADOPT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE WITH CHANGES LISTED BELOW: 1. Deleting the section regarding permitted variations. 2. Keeping 5.560 with a change to section three as follows: Consistent and compatible with the Brighton Village development and adjacent uses in the district. 3 ayes, 1 nay. MOTION APPROVED. •