pm_071003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes -Wednesday, October 03, 2007 Page 2 Ms. Radel noted that the City Council had directed staff to implement several of the recommended zoning and subdivision ordinance amendments made by the Advisory group, including those related to subdivision variance language (B.2); perpendicular lot lines (B.3); private streets (B-4); driveway location (B.5); creation of a zoning overlay district (C.4); evaluation of fees (C.5); the zoning preamble (C.6); and environmentally-friendly development practices (D.1). Staff provided ared-lined copy of proposed language changes, relative to their respective sections; with the most significant amendment being the creation of the Single-Family Residential Overlay District (SFROD). Ms. Radel noted that staff had not amended any fees at this time, as staff reviewed fees on an annual basis as part of the upcoming fiscal year budget; and also noted that staff was doing a more substantive review of zoning code for environment protection and sustainable practices for incorporation into all codes as applicable. Discussion included side-yard setback for those lots guided by the overlay district; calculation of existing language and calculations of seventy percent (70%); rationale for and identification of specific lots platted on or before May 21, 1959; staff's reorganization of sections of the code to make it more user-friendly and readable; design standards for streets and driveways within the subdivision code (Chapter 1103); City Engineer concerns regarding long-term management of private streets versus public streets; City Attorney language recommendations; numbering iterations versus substantive changes on future drafts for easier tracking by commissioners; and potential overlay districts for future commercial neighborhood uses. Additional discussion included rationale for a separate section for the SRFOD, rather than incorporating changes within business and/or residential sections of the code; typical planning practice to have overlay districts as a separate section and the sequence of various chapters; no action directed by the City Council for creating an overlay or zoning district specific to shorelands; and a discussion of the maximum accessory building size and square footage, with current code allowing for 864 square feet of accessory building(s) on asingle-family residential lot, and whether that size needed to be lowered on lots within the SFROD, or if they would be self-regulating due to other mechanisms (i.e., setback and cumulative impacts) in existing code. Further discussion included methodology for calculations of 864 square feet specified in the previous ordinances adopted in 1999/2000, accessory building standards (i.e., garages); preferred height restrictions and whether athirty-foot (30') or high 2-1/2 story home built above grade on a small lot was appropriate; estimated number of potential lots (estimated by staff to be 100 out of 14,000) that would fall within the SFROD and/or under 7,700 square feet; non-conformity of the lots as they exist today; smaller side-yard setbacks indicated; and staff's concern in dictating or establishing design standards that would limit the style of homes possible to be built on these lots. Considerable discussion was held regarding usability and size of homes without deviation; encroachment permit process (setback permits) and administrative criteria available for staff to issue a minor variance permit without the Public Hearing process. Staff noted that most of those minor variance requests involved porch additions; additions to side yard setbacks; expanding existing attached garages; or expanding kitchen areas off the back of a home to make the space more functional. Commissioner Boerigter opined his support to leave language at 30' or 2-1/2 stories. Further discussion included functionality and/or placement on lots of homes built in the 1950's compared to today's lifestyles and family preferences; impacts to home values and quality of life issues for existing and/or new homes, with staff opining that pre-existing conditions and new construction are very different in meeting existing code requirements; potential abuse of administrative permits, with staff advising that