2013_11_06_PC_MInutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, November 6, 2013 Page 4 Mr. Paschke advised that most developers and contractors that staff dealt with performed their 144 due diligence and research, and came to staff to review them before finalizing their designs. Mr. 145 Paschke noted that it was infrequent that a problem occurred unless someone prepared their 146 design and was ready to proceed with the permit process without realizing the design standards 147 adopted by the City. Mr. Paschke noted that staff had already supported several design features 148 with unique situations that met code and still accomplished the design goals of the applicant. 149 Member Boguszewski stated that his contention remained that the residential character of a 150 street was more dependent on landscaping and overall massing relative to the road than the 151 relative distance of the face of a garage compared to the home itself. Member Boguszewski 152 further stated that he agreed that the City didn’t want new homes up against a road to retain the 153 residential feel. Given the variables in architectural detail possible, Member Boguszewski opined 154 that he wasn’t sure that should be included in code. However, Member Boguszewski advised that 155 while he was not concerned with the first two bullet points (lines 11 – 12); he preferred language 156 added to Section 2 (lines 31-32) similar to the following: 157 “If no part of the structure is closer than 50’ from the front property line, this setback requirement 158 could be waived…” 159 Member Cunningham expressed her interest in addressing flexibility for lots having physical 160 constraints (e.g. lake lots, etc.), or if on a smaller lot, there was limited ability to make sure the 161 garage is in an exact location; and provided several possible scenarios. Member Cunningham 162 stated that she was not opposed to adding flexibility to City Code to allow the Planning 163 Department to have more discretion in those types of decisions if there were extenuating 164 circumstances, and staff encouraging owners to do more architectural detailing, without actually 165 defining those components. Member Cunningham stated that she trusted staff’s discretion, and 166 noted other areas in City C ode that allowed them that same discretion. 167 Mr. Lloyd referenced Section B “Requirements Apply to All New Construction” (page 2, lines 33 – 168 41) consisting of existing language already utilized in several circumstances allowing staff 169 interpretation and administrative deviation ability. Mr. Lloyd provided several examples of those 170 situations used where lots had physical restraints. 171 Member Keynan questioned how problematic this requirement is right now, or how many issues 172 staff was finding; whether the Commission was trying to fix something that really was not a 173 problem. 174 Mr. Lloyd opined that, depending on who you spoke to, there was room for debate as to whether 175 or not there was a problem with garage placement. Mr. Lloyd advised that current code language 176 had been based on Comprehensive Plan guidance; and usually when a problem came forward, it 177 was due to the applicant designing their home without being aware of City requirements. 178 However, Mr. Lloyd noted that this infrequent issue certainly had no effect on the safety or 179 neighborhood degradation typically part of an analysis. 180 Mr. Paschke advised that of the 45-50 single-family home permits issued since the new code was 181 put in place, he was aware of only 1 instance where the applicant sought a variance, that was 182 subsequently not approved by the Variance Board, nor on appeal by the City Council. Mr. 183 Paschke noted that this one applicant strongly expressed his lack of support of those design 184 standards. 185 Under those circumstances, Member Keynan stated that he was fine with staff having additional 186 flexibility on a case by case basis. 187 Member Boguszewski concurred, noting that the applicant/developer had indicated that such a 188 design standard would require a variance process and cause homes to be priced higher; and in 189 his case, having to redesign the configuration, it would hurt his ability to sell the home or market it 190 cost-effectively based on that current code language. Member Boguszewski questioned whether 191 or not the Variance Board or the City Council on appeal had ultimately supported that assertion, 192 but that it was irrelevant at this point; but questioned if the City had observed any other problems 193 in the housing market that would support that assertion. 194