Laserfiche WebLink
ATTACHMENT F <br />Regular Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, June 1, 2022 <br />Page 5 <br />Member Schaffhausen asked if there is any redevelopment than there will have to be <br />conversation about that. <br />Ms. Trapp indicated that was correct. <br /> <br />Ms. Gundlach indicated the value is the City matches the model ordinance and define <br />the shoreland as being out one thousand feet. The practical impact to the City’s non- <br />riparian lots who are now scooped up in that boundary is minimal, if non-existent and <br />the City will need to be very careful about how this is messaged moving forward <br />because once this gets to a public hearing the City will be notifying those people and <br />she imagined there will be concerns about that. <br /> <br />The Commission discussed with staff wetland rules and wording in the ordinance. <br /> <br />Chair Kimble asked if there was consensus of the Commission to keep the smaller <br />water bodies within the shoreland and keep the three hundred feet for those ones. <br /> <br />The Commission concurred. <br /> <br />Member McGehee asked if there should be a consensus on the bluff, she thought <br />there were not many bluffs in the City but did not know why it would not be kept at <br />thirty feet like it currently is. She thought that would be another offering when trying <br />to adjust things. <br /> <br />Staff and the Commission discussed where in the City there were bluffs. <br /> <br />Chair Kimble thought rather than agreeing to this maybe staff could assess whether it <br />should be removed, if the City does not have any bluffs. <br /> <br />Mr. Paschke did not think it would hurt to leave the section in because staff does not <br />honestly know if there are any bluffs in the City or not. <br /> <br />The Commission and staff discussed Section 3.0, Administration. <br /> <br />Commission Schaffhausen liked this and thought it fit in line with some of the other <br />things the City does as far as the park dedication and kind of feels in line with that. <br /> <br />Chair Kimble was on the fence about this because she felt like she did not have <br />enough examples of what this could be and she was concerned it could possibly be <br />too much of a penalty or overly restrictive to people. <br /> <br />Commissioner Schaffhausen asked if it would show up in a variance or be a condition <br />of a variance. <br /> <br /> <br />