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 12 of 16 <br />Hsu responded that they were stretching the law and he did not know what they were <br />trying to achieve by doing that. <br />Hoefner stated that the replat did meet the criteria and that Council could recognize in <br />this instance that everyone was in agreement that moving the lot line made some <br />sense, notwithstanding the criteria in the code. <br />Williams asked what would happen if someone wanted to develop the shed on lot 1A. <br />Zuccaro replied that shed would become a legally non -conforming structure. Under the <br />code, you can further that kind of structure but you could not further the encroachment. <br />Williams asked about the process for reviewing a non -conforming structure. <br />Ritchie stated that it depended on the incoming request. It could be reviewed by the <br />Commission or by staff depending on what the owner asked for. <br />Williams asked if that made it a hardship for lot 1A. <br />Hsu added that right now the shed could be expanded more. <br />Brauneis pointed out that the owner had already agreed to the changes in the <br />application. <br />Hsu replied that this application could actually harm the reasonable development of the <br />shed. <br />Howe asked if Commissioner Hsu was suggesting resubmitting the proposal as a PUD. <br />Hsu responded that he was suggesting to keep outlot A in the application and leave the <br />lot line as -is. <br />Howe asked what it would take to resubmit the application as a PUD. <br />Ritchie replied that there was no development that would be associated with a PUD at <br />this time. She added that the shed was likely constructed prior to the Design Standards <br />adopted today, so the design itself would be problematic to develop without bringing it <br />up to design standards. She noted that staff would have to confirm with the property <br />owner with this request to relocate the lot line and staff would have to confirm that he <br />was comfortable moving forward with the application without moving the lot line. <br />Williams asked how much square footage Divine Canine would be losing off their lot. <br />Brauneis clarified that the Commission should not think about the current business but <br />instead think of it as the entire lot, since the same owner owns both lots. <br />Williams asked for clarification on lot ownership. <br />The other commissioners confirmed that it was the same owner for all the lots. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.