2007_1126_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment C Extract from the Planning Commission Meetir�g Mir�utes—Octobe� 3, 20(17 �. PROJECT �IL� 01101 Review and d'rscussiort of ptopased arnendments ta th� Residence Districts chapter nf the znning ordinance, pursua�tt to the 2007 Lot Split 5tudy recommendations. Chair �ak�man op�ned the Public hlearing for Project �'ile DO(31. Economic Developrr�ent Associate Jarr►ie Ftadel provided a bri�f review ar�d disc€�ssinn af proposed art�endmenis to the �tesidence Dis�ricts chapter nf the Ci�y'� Zaning Ordinance, p�rsuant tn the 2007 Lot Spli� Stu�y recomrr�endations; and thnse items ideniified by �he City Council foilowir�g those recomrnendations. Ms. Radel noked that #he City Council had diree�ed s�aff to implerr�ent 5everai of the recommended zaning and subdivision ordinance arner�dmer�ts made by �F�e Advisory group, including thase related ta s�bdiuision variance fanguage (B.2}; perpendicular lot li�es (B.3); private streets (E3-4); driveway lacation (B.�); creafion of a zoning overlay district (C.4); e�aluation of fees (C.5); the zoning preamble {C.6); and environmentally- friendly de�elopment practices (�.1). StafF pro�ided a red-lined capy nf prnposed language ehanges, rela�ive ta their respective seciians; with the most significant arr�endment being the creation of the Single-�amily Residentia! ��erfay dis�rict (SFROC}}. Ms. Rade€ nnted that stafF had r�ot amer�ded any fees a# this time, as staff re�iewed €�es on an annuaE basis as part af ihe upcoming fiscal year b�adget; and alsa na�ed that stafF was doing a more substanti�e review af zoning eode for enviranmen� protection and sustainable practices €or incorporation inta all codes as applicable. discussion included side-yard setbac� for those lofs guided by the o�eriay dis�rici; calcuiatian of existing language and calculaiions of seventy percent (7Q%); ratianale for and iden�ification af �pecific lots pla�ted on nr before May 29, 1959; staff's reorganizatian of seciions af the cnde tc� make it mor� user-friendly and readable; design standards far sireets and driveways within the s€��division eode (Chapter 1103); City Engineer concerns regarding Eong-t�rm manager►�ent of privat� streets versus public streets; City Attorney language recor�m�ndatians; numbering iterations versus subsi�nti�e ahanges an future �ra�ts for easier traeking by comrnissioners; and potential ov�rlay dis�ricts for future commercial neighbnrhnod uses. Additianal discussion included rationale far a separate section for th� SR�OU, rather than incorpnrating changes within business ar�dlnr residen�ial sec�ions of the code; typicaE planning practice to haue overlay districts as a separate seciion and the sequence of �arious chapter�; no actic�r� d�rected by the City Council for creatir�g an nverlay nr zoning district speeific tn shorelands; and a discussion of the maximurn accessnry b�ilding size and square footage, with current code allowing for 864 squar� f�et of accessnry building(s) on a singie-�€amily residential lat, and whether tha� size needed to be lowered an lats wiihin the SFRO[�, or if they wauld be seif-regula�ing due to ather mechanisms (i.e., setback anci cumulative impacts) in exisiing code. Further discussion included methodolo�y for ealculations of 864 sq�are feet specified in th� previaus ord[r�ances adopted i€� 1999120n0, accessory k�uilding standards (i.e., garages); preferr�d heighi restrictians and whether a thirty-fnot (30') nr high 2-�12 sfvry home buili above grade on a srriall lot was apprnpriat�; estimated number of potential lats (estirna�ed by sta€F to be 100 aut qf '14,�00) �hat wo�ld fall within the SFf20D and/or under 7,700 square feet; r�vn-conformity of the Iots as they exisfi today; srnaller side-yard setbacks indicated; and staff's cor�cern in dictating or esta�lishing design standards tha� would limit ��e style of horrtes possible io be buiit on these lofs.