My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Minutes 2019 01 10
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2000-2019 Planning Commission
>
2019 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Minutes 2019 01 10
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/9/2020 1:16:47 PM
Creation date
7/9/2020 10:58:19 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Meeting Date
1/10/2019
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />January 10, 2019 <br />Page 11 of 16 <br />were other alternatives, for example tearing down the shed or going through a PUD <br />process. <br />Brauneis asked if Hsu had a different procedure in mind. <br />Hsu responded that he had not considered the application with the PUD criteria in mind, <br />but that the present application seemed to involve a lot of legal wrangling that might be <br />unnecessary. <br />Hoefner recommended that they add a note recommending that City Council waive the <br />modification review criteria. <br />Hsu replied that he did not think the Council could do that. <br />Zuccaro added that the Council did have the authority but would have to pass an <br />ordinance. He asked the Commission to consider what it meant to reasonably develop a <br />property for criterion 2. Staff determined that it was not possible to reasonably develop <br />the lot with both the shed and the road. <br />Hoefner agreed and stated that he did not see the friction point, since staff, the property <br />owner, and the Commission agreed with the application in substance and outcome, <br />even if there was disagreement over procedure. <br />Howe agreed and noted that the application was part of an effort to complete goals in <br />the Comprehensive Plan and to build the underpass. <br />Hsu stated that there were two workarounds already. They could not move the line in <br />the current application since it does not affect the underpass or they could wait for a <br />PUD. <br />Williams agreed, stating that moving the lot line had nothing to do with the underpass. <br />She understood that moving the lot line helped facilitate development, but the lot was <br />developed as -is. She did not understand what the application was trying to solve right <br />now other than the underpass. <br />Zuccaro responded that it was a fair analysis and Council would have to make that <br />judgement based on the Commissions' recommendation. <br />Williams stated that not changing the lot line did not change anything for the future. <br />Brauneis responded that this was an opportunity to lay out the lot lines to make it easier <br />in the future, since right now the property owner was amenable. <br />Williams replied that for all the City knew one person could buy the whole lot in the <br />future. <br />Hoefner and Brauneis asked what the harm was in moving the line. <br />13 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.