pm_071003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes -Wednesday, October 03, 2007 Page 3 an applicant needed to meet a set of twelve (12) criteria for consideration, including whether or not the applicant created the hardship; and staff's ability to discern setback variance requests and their appropriateness, with applicants usually following the advice of staff and revising their requests prior to proceeding through an informal or formal process (i.e., Development Review Committee recommendations). Commissioner Gottfried opined that a good portion of the current rules and regulations would self-regulate the lots, with variances considered on a case by case basis, and were relatively few in perspective to the total number of lots. Commissioner Gottfried further opined that creating an entire set of rules specific to the SFROD was cumbersome; and expressed confidence in staff's ability to monitor applications; and the market place to dictate the rules. Ms. Radel clarified that non-conforming lots within the district were approximately 100; however, that there were a much greater number of lots that would be impacted. Chair Bakeman recognized that height was a topic of much Study Group discussion, but expressed her willingness to leave the height as currently indicated. Commissioner Doherty complimented staff on the wonderful rendering of the small lots on the map; with Ms. Radel advising that she would pass on Commission comments to GIS Technician Joel Koepp, for his development of the mapping Chair Bakeman thanked staff for pursuing the modifications, upon City Council direction; opining it made the many hours spent by the Study Group worthwhile. Commissioner Boerigter opined that the modifications directed for revision to-date by the City Council were only the fringe issues at the lot split study issue; and the meat of the issue are those items needing substantial policy discussions by the City Council to allow for implementation. Staff was requested to include footnotes as applicable to assist novice readers of the code, including various charts for consistency; to create a separate section for the overlay district; define "overlay district;" incorporate typographical corrections as verbally noted throughout review; to add a column to the Chart of uses in Section 1004.015 for SFROD to be consistent with and avoid confusion with headings on the next chart; define "SFROD" in the beginning, including the abbreviation of such; define "Riparian Lot" (adjacent to water) in shoreland districts; define or clarify "lot" or "lot line front" for corner lot dimensions, consistent with the definition of "yard;" further clarification of how staff defines the front lot line as the shortest of the two dimensions; consider whether language related to lot line front and rear was necessary; and to bring a refined document to the Commission for further review prior to finalization and recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner Wozniak asked for a timeline from staff on those elements related to environmental protection and sustainability, and the review of the overall zoning code. Mr. Paschke advised that part of Interim Community Director Mike barrow's charge from the City Manager and part of his contract, was for his review of and recommendation to the City Council flags and earmarks for areas of the code where environmental issues could be incorporated. Mr. Paschke advised that he would consult with Mr. Darrow and provide a more definitive response at the November Planning Commission meeting. Concluding discussion included possible language revisions to the preamble or purpose statement; with Commission consensus that the existing language, as adopted, was crafted after substantial discussion and refinement; and would be better left without additional tweaking at this stage.