Council holds public hearing on Creekstone setback variance; decision deferred to May 5

City Council members heard a public hearing April 21 on a variance request to reduce a front-yard setback from 20 feet to 16 feet for Lot 64 of Phase 2 of the Creekstone subdivision on Timber Ridge Road.

Planner Sarah McQuade, who said she provides planning services to the city through CPL, described the request and the staff recommendation. "Staff did recommend denial of this request because when you look at the hardship criteria ... criteria 1, 2, and 5 were not met," McQuade said, adding that the developer "is aware of" the standards set for the planned unit development and that the lot could be developed with a different home plan that meets the PUD standards.

The variance would let the applicant build a 35-by-40-foot home four feet closer to the front property line than the PUD allows. McQuade told council the site is already pushed as far back to the rear setback as it can be and that, if denied, the developer "would have to build a different residence than the one they're proposing." She also stated that the PUD's minimum house size and other standards remain applicable.

Two residents from Creekstone spoke. Joanne Jackson, 480 Brookstone Trail, said she supports approval and worried a smaller model home could lower neighborhood property values and "stand out as being different." Logan Samples, 235 Timber Ridge, spoke against the variance, citing potential decreases in property values, reduced yard space and driveway length, the likelihood of on-street parking and safety concerns in the cul-de-sac; he said a similar small-lot home nearby had been listed for months with no buyers.

Mayor Walden and council members asked staff clarifying questions about minimum allowable house size in the relevant PUD and R-1 zoning. Planner McQuade said the PUD minimum house size discussed was 1,200 square feet, while zoning staff later noted that the city's R-1 zoning minimum is 1,500 square feet.

The council closed the public hearing and did not act on the variance at the meeting. The city attorney advised that, because a council decision on this matter would have the force and effect of law, the council must wait the required two meetings before voting; the council said it will decide at its May 5 meeting.

The matter will return to council for a formal vote on May 5, at which time any motion and vote tally will be recorded in the minutes.