2016-04-06_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes –Wednesday, March 2, 2016 Page 4 Mr. Lloyd prefaced his response by noting that the driving force behind theofficial 146 statutory timeframe and that of the additional open house proscribed by city code was 147 greatly impacted by what viable Planning Commission date might be available for holding 148 the formal public hearing based on the number and type of cases also appearing before 149 the body along with time for reasonable preparation of those materials.Mr. Lloyd noted 150 that an open house is required by city code for rezoning and preliminary plat 151 consideration if creating four or more parcels.Typically, Mr. Lloyd advisedthat the open 152 house is to be held within 15 to 45 days of submitting an application.In this case, Mr. 153 Lloyd advised that the it was true that the open house for this development was held 154 some time ago, with the application itself submitted on or about December 17, 2016, but 155 subsequently rejected administratively as originally submitted with the preliminary plat 156 and variances allowing for smaller lot widths. Mr. Lloyd advised that staff did not support 157 the variance portion of the application and therefore,plans were revised as per the 158 present plat arrangement.Mr. Lloyd clarified that a revision of plans doesn’t constitute the 159 need for the developer to hold a new open house. 160 At the request of Chair Boguszewski, Mr. Lloyd confirmed that the dates were boundby 161 the original application, and with some flexibility, the timeframe is around thirty days. 162 Chair Boguszewski noted that the email expressed concern with scheduling the open 163 house and availability of residents around the proximity to the Christmas holidays, but 164 opined that the window didn’t consider holidays and asked if staff guided or counseled 165 applicants accordingly. 166 Mr. Lloyd confirmed that the calendar and potential conflicts were part of the process in 167 an informal way, but also agreed with Chair Boguszewski that city code proscribes the 168 times of day and week in defining open house schedules.Mr. Lloyd noted that it would be 169 difficult to avoid any and all holiday schedules that vary depending on cultures and beliefs 170 and ethnicities.Mr. Lloyd further clarified that the intent of the open house is that it be 171 held by the developer with the surrounding community to get their feedback, and 172 purposely held outside staff’s determinations and before staff completes their analysis 173 and brings a case before the Planning Commission for their recommendation.While staff 174 may provide some guidance to the applicant if asked, Mr. Lloyd noted that city code 175 regulates the process and the only caveat is that the developer be considerate of the 176 process and intent of the open house process and awareness of the neighborhood. 177 Member Daire asked if the proposed zoning change would allow duplexes on these lots. 178 Mr. Lloyd responded that nominally speaking, duplexes are allowed in LDR-2 zoning 179 districts.However, Mr. Lloyd noted that a two-family home requires 4,800 square feet per 180 unit, and therefore lots would need to range from 7,000 to approximately 8,000 square 181 feet.Under this proposal, Mr. Lloyd advised that none of these lots would be large 182 enough to allow for or accommodatea two-family home without combining properties, 183 triggering the need to re-plat them before doing so. 184 At the request of Member Daire, Mr. Lloyd confirmed that the maximum number 185 allowable for the proposed area –if rezoned –is six units. 186 In driving the site, Member Daire observed a turnaround or cul-de-sac and asked if the 187 city owned the easements or if they infringed on private property.Mr. Lloyd clarified that 188 the cul-de-sac per se was actually square-ended and is in the existing right-of-way for 189 Wheaton Avenue.Mr. Paschke also confirmed that it was in the public right-of-way. 190 Member Daire asked if there was any exploration or a possibility of creating two cul-de- 191 sacs back to back on Wheaton Avenue.Mr. Paschke advised that the discussion had 192 initially occurred with the developer and also a curvilinear road.Mr. Paschke opined that 193 such a back-to-back cul-de-sac design would not be supported by the City Engineer, the 194 Public Works Director, or under the current zoning code. 195 Member Daire asked if the offset intersection of Wheaton Avenue with Dale Street and 196 across it presented any problems. 197