2006 07-26 CC PACKET - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

At about that point Mr. McNulty left the room (in apparent irritation) and did not return for the rest of the discussion. The discussion continued regarding new CUP procedures in lieu of absolute 100-foot setbacks for stables and kennels, liberalization of the LDB district rules, the anticipated (but not in this version) addition of PUD procedures for the RB, GB and LDB districts, the addition of a park dedication requirement, and the use of time -limited Interim Use Permits in addition to Conditional Use Permits that are not time limited and which run with the land. Mr. Hoeschler explained that there had been a large number of typographical and section cross reference changes made in the latest draft after distribution to interested parties. These and other changes were summarized in a listing provided to the Commission by Mr. Magnuson. Mr. Hoeschler then asked for and received public input on the following: a. Liberalization of storm water runoff and detention rules to meet concerns of the Hillary Farm team. Audience members warned the City about legal exposure for not following the more strict state rules and guidelines. Mr. Magnuson described discussions with Mr. McNulty which he hoped would result in a hold harmless agreement from Mr. McNulty re any Hillary Farm homeowner claims. b. 25% lot coverage (verses 30%) limits in R-1 zones. It was explained that there had been an inconsistency in the language of the earlier drafts (calling variously for a 25% or a 30% coverage limit). 25% had been chosen as the final figure after analyzing the 11,500 SF Larkin home design and confirming that it, with its pool and drive areas as well as a possible tennis court, would not be constrained by a 25% limit. The audience seemed satisfied with this. c. 100' rather than 150' setback limits from the lake. Some audience members spoke strongly in favor of using a variance procedure rather than the site review committee or CUP procedures or the more liberal numbers in parts of the proposed Code. Mr. Hoeschler thanked the public for taking the time to appear and speak on these matters because arguments had been previously heard that only the Planning Commission seemed to be concerned about issues like height. He said that the comments made reflected what he had heard informally in discussions with various property owners. He explained that an absolute 35-foot limit on all facades had been considered (with a variance procedure as the relief device) but that idea had not seemed to gain traction. Mr. Hoeschler asked Amy Cralam, Mr. McNulty's attorney, for her comments and she distributed a 3-page letter which objected to: storm water control rules (even if more liberal than state guidelines) unless Hillary Farm is given a blanket exemption, definitions respecting the height rules, the use of a CUP and additional setback requirements re height of walkouts, prohibition of artificial grading to facilitate walkouts, and 70% (or 75%) open space requirements in the R-1 zone. Her letter was received into the record.