City Council Minutes 1992 02 18 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Davidson: there is an exchange of money. I have a problem with deeding the property right up to the walkway, because Council doesn't want an alley effect, fences up to the walkway. Davidson moved that staff be directed to work with the home owners to come up with an alternate solution to this problem. Seconded by Hornbostel. Sisk: Ail in favor. A solution I have is a revocable easement be given allowing the improvements to be made. I am totally in favor of the motion. RESOLUTION NO. 17, SERIES 1992 - AMENDMENT TO CENTENNIAL HEIGHTS FINAL PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN - CORNER FENCES Franklin explained that the applicants, being property owners in the Development, requested a change to the plan requirements as it effects privacy fences on corner lots. There are approximately 14 corner lots in Centennial Heights and the PUD stipulates a setback requirement which is different from what the City normally requires for privacy fences for side yards on corner lots. There is also a more stringent spacing requirement for the fence posts as specified on the PUD. Several of the owners wish to construct privacy fencing in accordance with the City's requirements and thus wish to convert the PUD requirements to the City's requirements through this amendment process. The Planning Commission did review the request and did recommend approval of the amendment. Mayer: Franklin: Why was there a difference between the PUD and the City's requirements? In speculating, there was a similar stipulation in the Corner Stone PUD and some of that language was used as a model for this PUD. The developer at the time preferred the difference in the setback to open up the street. Howard: Franklin: Why was Corner Stone different from every other place in the City? Often PUD's have more stringent requirements than the City's, because of the unique nature of the 14