CCP 01312022 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

RCA Attachment D connected to the lake then the City cannot control their access. She wondered if there was any way there could be some kind of compromise where two adjacent lots share a boardwalk and a dock or would the City not have any control over that at all. She thought the homes themselves along Victoria seemed to make sense and the protection of the wetland seemed to make sense. She thought the hang up was where the docks and boardwalks will go so she wondered if there could be any kind of compromise. Mr. Lloyd did not believe the Shoreland Code has any provisions regulating docks, particularly when in the water. He thought that there are provisions for when docks are stored on the land. He reviewed the Shoreland Section of the Zoning Code related to this with the Commission. The Commission further discussed the option of tabling versus denying this item. Member Schaffhausen wondered if there was a way to create that park space as that easement instead of cash in lieu of land. She understood the Parks and Recreation Commission requested cash. Mr. Lloyd indicated it is not the Parks and Recreation Commission role to conclusively determine what the park dedication, it is a recommendation and the purview of the City Council to make a decision about that. It is certainly clear that there is some concern and maybe some possibility of having park land be the dedication somewhere along the wetland, but it may not be the jurisdiction and purview of the Planning Commission to recommend specifically formally something like that. Chair Kimble reviewed where in the deliberation the Commission was at in the motion process. She asked Member McGehee if her original motion still stood. Member McGehee indicated she would like the original motion to still stand and possibly then for the developer to work with staff to see if something could come forward that reflected the discussion of the community and Planning Commission. Chair Kimble ask Member Schaffhausen if her second still stood to that motion. Member Schaffhausen signaled her intention was yes. Chair Kimble indicated this is a recommending body so the CommissionÓs motion to deny, if it were to pass would be a recommendation to the Council along with the comments made. She thought the Commission should vote on this motion if there were no other comments. Member Bjorum thought that based on everything that was presented and everything that has been laid out by staff and the developer. Everything presented meets or exceeds the CityÓs requirements for the subdivision for the plot restructure. The issue the Commission has is the lake access points for each property that the City does not have legal standing to dictate. He noted it does not seem like if that is the case then the Commission does not have any legal standing to deny the motion to proceed Page 15 of 65