2010-07-07_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, July 07, 2010 Page 16 impervious coverage at 30% versus total lot coverage by other structures or 756 amenities at a total of 50%; structure expansion without expanding its footprint; 757 and cases being heard at the Planning Commission or Variance Board indicating 758 that the lot coverage percentage was too low. 759 After further discussion, members concurred that a 50% lot coverage limit was 760 suitable. 761 At the request of Member Boerigter, Mr. Paschke advised that newly created or 762 expanded standards would be part of the zoning code rewrite, with supplemental 763 regulations all in one location in the code. 764 Further discussion included current code and proposed code related to 765 calculation and more clarifying terminology for up to three (3) accessory 766 structures, or a maximum of 864 square feet for garden shed requirements. 767 Commissioners were in consensus in correcting public comment related to the 768 amount of time spent to-date on this zoning code rewrite, with the Consultant 769 having begun working with staff in November of 2009, and the Planning 770 Commission consistently hearing various iterations and drafts of the code since 771 February of 2010, following preliminary discussions and input provided to staff 772 and the consultant before the public hearing. 773 Additional discussion included clarifying the City Attorney’s recommendations 774 related to criteria in the sidebar related to design standards for home and/or 775 multi-family structure facades and amount of coverage to allow more flexibility. 776 Member Boerigter proposed removing that design standard, expressing his 777 opposition in supporting the code based specifically on that language being 778 included. Member Boerigter opined that it made no sense, and he remained 779 unconvinced, that garage doors impacted pedestrian-friendly amenities in any 780 way; and spoke in opposition to telling homeowners or developers how to design 781 homes. 782 Mr. Lamb advised that the general intent was that the garage not be the primary 783 facade to the street; and advised that most of the sidebars were meant as an 784 explanation of the text and not adopted into code. 785 Discussion ensued regarding intent, perceptions, and how the proposed 786 language supported or didn’t support that intent as it related to facades, and 787 whether the sidebar should be removed in its entirety; and whether the text of the 788 code and the sidebar were in sync and how they would be interpreted; with each 789 individual Commissioner providing their own interpretation of the sidebar criteria. 790 Discussion ensued regarding eliminating criteria in C entirely, with Member 791 Boerigter supporting removal of garage requirements completely; and the 792 majority of Members supporting more specific language in the sidebar for B 793 (Page 5) with the garage. 794 Further discussion included the types of physical constraints, such as steep 795 slopes or mature trees in the rear yard; and how to avoid being perceived as 796 arbitrary. 797 Mr. Paschke suggested that the Commission vote on this issue specifically, as 798 opposed to voting down the entire ordinance due to this one item. 799 50% Full Lot Coverage 800 Discussion included the infrequent need for this regulation as previously 801 discussed; with members and staff concurred that 50% was an appropriate 802 threshold. 803