Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
Peter Kernkamp, Planner, stated that this request is by the <br />homeowners of Lots 1 and 16. The model home is still owned by <br />Storck Development on Lot 85. The request is to reduce the <br />required setback from 15 ft. to 8 ft. to the property line, <br />resulting in an 8 ft. setback from the fence to the house. The <br />Planning Commission recommended approval of a 6 ft. setback from <br />property line to side yard fence on Lots 1 and 85. On Lot 16, The <br />required setback from the property line is also 15 ft. The <br />Planning Commission recommended an 8 ft. setback from the side yard <br />property line. The PUD requires that the fence return be to the <br />rear corner of the home. The Planning Commission recommends <br />approval of a request by the applicant that the fence be allowed to <br />return to the house 12 ft. from the corner. <br /> <br />Davidson called for the applicant's statement. <br /> <br />Reed Schielke, Storck Development, 129 Cherrywood Lane, Louisville, <br />Colorado, owner of Lot 16, was there to answer any questions. <br /> <br />Lathrop wondered if the fencing that a~gles in and attaches to <br />Schielke's home, would be of the same material and nature that the <br />perimeter fence is. <br /> <br />Schielke stated that it is supposed to and he now he has a letter <br />in to Storck Development stating that they are responsible for <br />that, since it's still considered perimeter fencing. One of the <br />notes on the PUD states exactly how it has to be built. <br /> <br />Lathrop wanted the perimeter fencing to be continued with <br />continuity. <br /> <br />Sisk: <br /> <br />What did Storck tell you about the <br />lot line when you purchased that? <br />Were you aware of this problem? <br />Were you led to believe that there <br />would be changes? <br /> <br />Schielke: <br /> <br />Storck had originally planned on <br />putting the same model that we <br />wanted on that lot, a "spec" with a <br />two car garage. Because it's on <br />McCaslin, they built this "spec" and <br />were going to waive the lot premium. <br />We said that, if you can put a three <br />car garage on it, that's the one we <br />want. In order to put the three car <br />garage, they had to drop it back and <br />shift it over closer to the other <br />house. That's why we have a 30 ft. <br />driveway, instead of an 18 ft. <br />setback, because a third car garage <br />would have bumped it over to the <br /> <br />14 <br /> <br /> <br />