pm_061101 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, November 01, 2006 Page 2 Mr. Sands noted that he had also brought this to the City Council’s and Community Visioning group’s attention, as well as asking Mr. Stark to review the zoning ordinance; and suggested that the Planning Commission recommend a moratorium on anything being implemented into the B-6 zoning that is not identified as part of the ordinance. Joel Cheney, 2172 Acorn Road Mr. Cheney sought clarification regarding distinctions for buildable front footage requirements in relationship to easement restrictions. Mr. Stark noted that additional information and detail would be needed to make an appropriate and accurate response, and was somewhat site-specific depending on various considerations. Mr. Stark did review how staff determined property widths for lots from a general policy standpoint, depending on staff and City Attorney interpretation of the spirit and intent of City Code (i.e., the recent driveway easement considered by the Planning Commission). Robert Rouda, 946 Lydia Drive Mr. Rouda expressed concerns regarding Twin Lakes redevelopment areas not being discussed tonight in conjunction with the case coming before the Planning Commission; opining that the whole acreage and its various phases should be discussed as an entire unit, not simply in parts. No one else from the public appeared to speak on any non-agenda items. Commissioners and Staff No comment. 5. Public Hearings a. PLANNING FILE 3791 PRELIMINARY PLAT Art Mueller seeks approval of a for the proposed subdivision of the residential property at 2201 Acorn Road into four (4) single-family lots served by a public street. Chair Traynor opened the Public Hearing at for Planning File 3791. City Planner Thomas Paschke reviewed the request of Mr. Mueller to subdivide his 1.9 acre parcel into four (4) single-family residential lots served by a public street and public utilities. does not Mr. Paschke noted that the proposal complies with all code requirements, and require Comprehensive Land Use Map designation amendment or a rezoning. Chair Traynor reviewed the previous case before the Commission for a Planned Unit Development (PUD), with a private street, and requested that staff explain the difference in that and this request. City Planner Paschke briefly reviewed the request and explained that the previous PUD was for a private street versus the public street now proposed; and noted that staff had not determined that no portion of tonight’s request was not in compliance with current City code. City Attorney Langel concurred with the previous discussion points. Commissioner Wozniak opined that the PUD allowed for more input from the City toward the development of the lots as opposed to the proposed plat at tonight’s meeting. Mr. Paschke advised that with the proposed Preliminary Plat meeting all current code requirements, the City’s ability to place conditions on the development were limited (i.e., tree preservation; lot size modifications), and would not allow for modifying setbacks or