The owners of the property located at 5835 Ironwood Drive, Neal and Sally Johnson, requested a variance from the requirement to install sidewalk along their property frontage, which was denied at the August 23, 2010 City Council Meeting. At the September 13, 2010, meeting, Council approved to reconsider the variance request for sidewalk installation at 5835 Ironwood Drive. The installation of sidewalk was required through the Subdivision Improvements Agreement for Ironwood Subdivision, 2nd Filing. The home was constructed in 2006 by Wells Built Homes, and a right of way permit was issued for the sidewalk fronting the lot. Ironwood Drive is classified as a Collector Street, and the Subdivision Improvements Agreement identified that a walking path be constructed throughout the subdivision, according to an approved plan behind and between lots, and also along the north side of Ironwood Drive. To date, sidewalk has been installed along the north side of Ironwood Drive along all of the lots except the last two on the east side of the subdivision. Both of these lots were developed in 2006, and the sidewalk was not installed with the buildings.

The construction of the sidewalk for both lots was put into the 2010 Miscellaneous/Developer Related project approved by City Council on April 26, 2010. Attached are letters from the property owners and the developer. Both state that the sidewalk is not needed due to the fact that a path exists on the other three sides of this property and that a court ruling does not require the construction of Ironwood Drive to extend further to the east. While both of these are true, a connection could still be constructed to the east even if it is just a sidewalk extension. To the east of the Ironwood Subdivision is vacant land that can be developed in the future. While there is a path on the other three sides of the property, there is not a continuous sidewalk along Ironwood Drive, which is a collector street.

Also, there is a procedural problem with the way the owners have presented this issue to the Council.  They want the Council to relieve them of the obligation to construct sidewalks.  The obligation was imposed by the Subdivision Improvements Agreement, not by any zoning requirement.  In order to effectively rescind the obligation to construct sidewalks the Subdivision Improvements Agreement must be amended, but a zoning variance does not amend the Subdivision Improvements Agreement.  The owners cannot obtain the relief they are requesting with a variance.  They could and should present this question to the Council with a Subdivision Improvements Agreement amendment.

The Council may:

• Approve the variance. As explained above, approval of this variance does not relieve the property owners of their obligation under the Subdivision Improvements Agreement to install sidewalk, and the sidewalk would still be completed under the 2010 Miscellaneous/Developer Related Project.  In order to not construct the sidewalk, the property owners must amend the subdivision improvements agreement, which would require seperate council action at a later date.

• Not approve the variance. If this variance is denied, the owner's option is to meet the requirements of the Subdivision Improvements Agreement, and the installation of the sidewalk would be completed under the 2010 Miscellaneous/Developer Related Project.

There is no direct financial impact to the City associated with this variance. Costs of the 2010 Miscellaneous/Developer Related Project would be assessed back against the current property owners.

Staff recommends that the City Council deny the variance for 5835 Ironwood Drive.