Laserfiche WebLink
Regular Planning Commission Meeting <br />Draft Minutes – Wednesday, November 2, 2016 <br />Page 17 <br />subjective to him, he opined that 50% was too low and he thought 560% was <br />813 <br />more accurate. Member Gitzen opined that this wasn’t a math problem that could <br />814 <br />be solved based on a particular comfort level, but stated that he didn’t’ want to <br />815 <br />limit people desiring to build. <br />816 <br />Member Murphy echoed the 60% as reasonable and opined that a result of <br />817 <br />supporting something lower than that might confine some desired improvements, <br />818 <br />even though he agreed it was a subjective area, but reiterating that he found the <br />819 <br />60% to be his sweet spot. <br />820 <br />Member Bull referenced earlier action at tonight’s meeting where the Commission <br />821 <br />had chosen to be more restrictive on the Conditional Use process. However, if <br />822 <br />the Commission sets this at 50% to 60% on an individual basis, Member Bull <br />823 <br />asked if that would require a property owner to apply for a Variance in some <br />824 <br />instances. <br />825 <br />Mr. Lloyd confirmed that could be the case. However, in the context of Variances <br />826 <br />versus Conditional Uses, in particular with new development, Mr. Lloyd noted an <br />827 <br />existing property coming forward for a Variance may be based on something that <br />828 <br />seemed adequate for development in the 1950’s no longer met household needs. <br />829 <br />Therefore, Mr. Lloyd opined that likewise someone with a new development would <br />830 <br />be in that same subjective territory of limits that were overly restrictive now and <br />831 <br />seeking adequate development on site based on today’s market conditions and <br />832 <br />what would work for today’s family and lifestyles. Mr. Lloyd opined that may be <br />833 <br />not different, but within a different context. <br />834 <br />Chair Boguszewski opined that this was perfect fodder for Variance Board <br />835 <br />consideration and if a need or hardship is identified under specific situations. <br />836 <br />Chair Boguszewski closed the public hearing at approximately 8:30 p.m., with no <br />837 <br />one appearing for or against. <br />838 <br />MOTION <br />839 <br />Member Bull moved, seconded by Member Gitzen to recommend to the City <br />840 <br />Council APPROVAL of the draft ordinance as presented by staff (RPCA <br />841 <br />Attachment B) as presented by staff and incorporating the proposed zoning <br />842 <br />text amendment, based on the comments and findings of the staff report <br />843 <br />dated November 2, 2016, and based on public comments and Planning <br />844 <br />Commission input. <br />845 <br />Ayes: 7 <br />846 <br />Nays: 0 <br />847 <br />Motion carried <br />848 <br />7. Other Business <br />849 <br />a. Temporary Family Health Care Dwellings <br />850 <br />Discuss outreach suggestions from the Community Engagement <br />851 <br />Commission and develop a draft work plan for gathering public input about <br />852 <br />temporary family health care dwellings and, if necessary, amending the <br />853 <br />zoning code to regulate them. <br />854 <br />As detailed in the staff report of today’s date, Mr. Lloyd reported on the results of <br />855 <br />his meeting with the City Council’s advisory Community Engagement Commission <br />856 <br />(CEC) and their suggestions for garnering feedback from the community to inform <br />857 <br />this issue. <br />858 <br />Mr. Lloyd asked for additional thoughts or ideas from the Planning Commission as <br />859 <br />the city considered defining its own local code provisions depending on the will of <br />860 <br />its residents for short- or long-term care for at-home care or off-site care facilities <br />861 <br />or other considerations. <br />862 <br /> <br />