2016-12-07_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Draft Minutes – Wednesday, November 2, 2016 Page 15 Mr. Lloyd clarified that the idea was that as single-family lot sizes got smaller in 711 LDR-2 and MDR-2, the allowance can increase; but if LDR-1 is at that end of the 712 range at 50% and LDR-2 at the middle of that range; keeping the continuum in 713 place, staff then proposed 60% versus 70% for LDR-2 given lot similarities for 714 MDR versus LDR-1. Therefore, Mr. Lloyd referenced the fairly simple amendment 715 proposed by staff in response to the most recent City Council direction, as shown 716 in the draft ordinance (RPCA Attachment B). 717 Member Bull asked if this would produce any properties in the city now becoming 718 nonconforming. 719 Mr. Lloyd agreed that it probably would, noting that there are some LDR parcels in 720 the city that have been in existence for a long time; and with the latest zoning 721 code amended in 2010 and now applied to properties meeting those development 722 parameters (e.g. two-family homes or duplexes) or having a density parameter for 723 LDR districts, some of those were nearly 100% imperviously covered based on 724 the development put together when constructed, that were at the time legal. Even 725 at 70% coverage, Mr. Lloyd noted some were or would be nonconforming if a 726 smaller portion of the improvement area was now applied. However, Mr. Lloyd 727 noted it was equally true that the city hadn’t received any permits for expansions 728 for any of those properties for many years even with the current LDR-2 district in 729 place. However, Mr. Lloyd advised that no one was going to have a harder time 730 with future proposals with this amendment than they would have under today’s 731 city code provisions. 732 Member Bull stated his concern was with imposing hardships on residents 733 seeking to improve their properties. 734 Mr. Lloyd clarified that in general, this amendment would apply to new versus 735 existing developments. 736 Member Daire asked staff to display a sketch he had created based on his 737 interpretation of what this amendment would mean to various zoning designations 738 for LDR-1, LDR-2 and MDR minimum lot sizes and total buildable or impervious 739 areas. Member Daire reviewed various calculations and required setback 740 scenario for each property type based on impervious surfaces and improvement 741 areas, all toward addressing implications for involvement of total lot area. 742 Using Member Daire’s sketch, Mr. Lloyd reviewed the implications from staff’s 743 perspective, opining that those setbacks as drawn are mostly correct, but needed 744 to be applied to the principle structure (e.g. house and attached garage) and 745 available parameters within which to build. Mr. Lloyd further clarified that an 746 unenclosed porch, even if encroaching into the front yard setback was fine as it 747 was not considered to be an impervious surface, and similarly a detached storage 748 shed or garage as accessory structures or decks without a roof and not enclosed. 749 Therefore, Mr. Lloyd noted there was no direct relationship between the size of a 750 lot and principle structure’s buildable area and the improvement areas as defined 751 in Attachment B, Item C. At the request of Member Daire, Mr. Lloyd confirmed 752 that included driveways and turnarounds as well. 753 At the request of Chair Boguszewski, and with a mixture of examples provided for 754 impervious coverage considerations, Mr. Lloyd further clarified that all impervious 755 coverage was subject to the limits of the overall improvement area. Mr. Lloyd 756 noted that while there was no intentional relationship between the total area of all 757 developments on a site with the overall lot size, they could coincide depending on 758 the specific situation. 759 Chair Boguszewski summarized, with concurrence by Mr. Lloyd, that it was about 760 the improvement area, not the impervious area. 761