2014_05_07_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, May 7, 2014 Page 12 discussions held in 2010 and even before, had just taken longer to get back to and as part of the 559 broader subdivision code revisions. 560 Mr. Paschke concurred, noting that it was not entirely the fault of Planning staff in the delay, but 561 also based on the lack of interest by the City Council in supporting smaller lot sizes in the past. 562 However, now that the Subdivision Ordinance was back to the forefront, those changes needed 563 to be incorporated; and it remained an issue needing to be addressed. 564 At the request of Member Boguszewski, Mr. Paschke reviewed the process moving forward 565 providing for public comment and deliberate decision-making. Mr. Paschke anticipated something 566 coming forward yet this summer, with Public Hearings on all the proposed amendments, including 567 lot size dimensions; and a discussion as to whether those dimensions need to be included in the 568 revised Subdivision Ordinance or Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Paschke opined that it was important to 569 get the lot sizes more consistent with reality; and noted that where lot sizes were currently found 570 in areas of the Subdivision Ordinance, and other nuances and reshuffling needed as the 571 document is organized and those things removed if not applicable, along with Minor Subdivision 572 clarification, staff would provide the technical data as part of that Public Hearing information. 573 Member Boguszewski asked that, as part of that information, staff be sure to include data 574 demonstrating increased scrutiny of banks and title companies, as one of the key reasons to do 575 this in an effort to protect people. Member Boguszewski opined that he anticipated considerable 576 and potentially passionate public interest in the potential for reduced lot sizes; especially from 577 those fearing the negative effects of those reductions. 578 Chair Gisselquist asked if residents attempting to get a home loan had to ask for City staff 579 assistance to calm the banker’s nerves about those non-conformities; and whether that was 580 becoming an increasing burden on staff. 581 Mr. Paschke responded that it was not a burden, but was a regular request for zoning verification 582 letters to banks and/or title companies, whether commercial, office or residential parcels, with 583 staff complying with those requests on a regular basis. However, in a number of cases, Mr. 584 Paschke advised that upon receiving those verification letters, it may raise red flags, requiring 585 additional information from staff to explain non-conformity issues for those residents. Mr. Paschke 586 noted that, during his tenure, the amount of scrutiny and more detailed information requested had 587 become more prevalent with the banking industry. Mr. Paschke advised that he was unsure if he 588 could provide that data as requested by Member Boguszewski, and while not a bad thing for staff 589 to provide that explanation to lending institutions, it didn’t make the need to do so by explaining 590 the non-conformities right, and continued to put staff in a position of needing to address 591 something that should have been addressed years ago to make the process more efficient for 592 property owners, and the City as a whole. 593 If the data was difficult to document, Member Boguszewski suggested that staff include Mr. 594 Paschke’s observations in the staff report as an information portion for public edification, 595 reiterating his anticipation that this may become a passionate discussion at the Public Hearing. 596 Member Daire confessed that he didn’t fully understand the original comments about residential 597 properties in LDR-1 Districts being 55% non-conforming until now; and could now appreciate 598 staff’s position. Member Daire asked Ms. Peterson to repeat the percentage of properties that 599 would remain non-conforming if lot dimensions were reduced. 600 Ms. Peterson reiterated that if dimensions were reduced, 93% became conforming, leaving only 601 7% remaining non-conforming, with the remaining lots representing flag lots that were 602 problematic under any size requirements, as well as shoreline lots and other anomalies. 603 Member Daire expressed his appreciation and commended Ms. Peterson and involved Planning 604 staff for this broad sweeping and thorough study. Member Daire advised that such a study proved 605 of great value to him; and as a matter of policy, the City wanted to avoid a planning environment 606 that created non-conformity by virtue of an unrealistic vision. Member Daire opined that the City 607 should strive to correct those non-conformities whenever possible; and supported Mr. Paschke’s 608 goal to minimize non-conformities as a sound policy direction. 609