Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />Page 18 of 23 <br />Primary structure setbacks, rear: does not currently conform; does not conform with <br />replat. <br />Dean stated that after the Code was amended last year, a plat without a PUD is referred to the <br />Subdivision Criteria. This plat can be processed as a nonconforming plat of record. Subdivision <br />criteria include: <br />1. Whether the plat conforms to all the requirements of this title; <br />a. Section 16.12.120 — Nonconforming Lots of Record. Lots created prior to 1982 <br />with complete living units and separate utility services. <br />b. Amend legal description. <br />c. BOA approval means that there is limited to no redevelopment. Not changing the <br />character of the neighborhood. <br />2. Whether approval of the plat will be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, <br />applicable zoning requirements, and other applicable federal, state, and city laws; <br />3. Whether the proposed subdivision will promote the purposes set forth in section <br />16.04.020 of this Code and comply with the standards set forth in chapter 16.16 of this <br />Code and this title. <br />Staff finds that while the plat does not meet all of the approval criteria set forth in Title 16 and <br />17, Section 16.12.120 enables certain existing non -conforming lots of record to be subdivided <br />even though the lots created do not meet the requirements of Title 16. Staff finds that this <br />subdivision request qualifies for review under this provision. In addition, the plat meets the <br />subdivision modification criteria set forth in Section 16.24.020, thus, allowing for the non- <br />conforming subdivision and zoning issues. Staff recommends approval of the proposed Final <br />Plat with two conditions: <br />1. Concurrent with the recordation of the plat, the applicant shall record the revocable <br />license agreement for the private improvements in the public Rights of Way. <br />2. Prior to the recordation of the plat, the applicant shall obtain approval of an amendment <br />to the historic landmark designation for 1131 Spruce St. to reflect the new legal <br />description. <br />3. Concurrent with the recordation of the plat, the applicant shall record deeds which reflect <br />the new legal descriptions for each lot. <br />The Planning Commission may recommend approval (with or without conditions) or denial of the <br />applicant's request for Final Planned Unit Development approval, or it may continue the <br />application. <br />Moline moved to enter the revised resolution entered into the record and Hoefner seconded. <br />Brauneis invited the applicant presentation. <br />Jean Morgan, 1131 Spruce stated that the replat was to make her lots more reasonable. The <br />current configuration came from a time when the original owner, a Hungarian immigrant, made <br />his own deals with new developments. Consequently, stepping off her porch she steps onto <br />another property. She owns both lots, but in the future someone may want to use them <br />separately. The house at 1117 Spruce has 5 parking spots, but her house needs the garage. <br />She stated that she had no interest in moving or adding anything, but she wanted to clean it up <br />for future owners. <br />Brauneis asked for additional questions and public comment. Seeing none, he asked for a staff <br />closing statement. <br />Dean stated they were recommending approval with the revised resolution with the three <br />conditions. <br />