Planning Commission Minutes 2018 05 10

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 10, 2018 Page 4 of 6 Brauneis asked that staff provide additional information on acronyms and jargon for public outreach materials. Zuccaro noted that the older neighborhoods could be grandfathered in to avoid being affected by the new restrictions, which might help address individual neighborhoods' concerns. Moline wondered if there was an underlying issue that drove the City to abolish the zone districts. He asked if the 1994 ordinance explains why the City wanted to restrict changes at that time. Ritchie stated that Council did it in the same ordinance that established the new single-family zones to replace the old ones. They may have wanted to reduce the lot coverages overall. Hsu suggested that there were some mathematical ways to avoid punishing homeowners who are a few square feet over. Brauneis asked for public comments. Sheree Burcar, 1881 West Choke Cherry Drive in Continental View Estates, wanted to learn more about what was at stake. She stated that Continental View had an HOA, but the HOA documents did not seem to have much about zoning. She stated that one of her concerns was having large houses on small lots. She added that different neighborhoods may need different solutions. Hsu wondered if there was a way to avoid large houses specifically in order to preserve the character of the neighborhood, maybe by putting restrictions on the growth of the house over time. He suggested putting this out as an option during the open houses. Brauneis added that more examples of what it would look like if these options played out would be helpful. Howe stated that he saw both sides of the issue. He noted that the City needed to be responsive to affordable housing, when growing families could not afford to buy new homes and turned to expanding their existing homes instead. He added that they needed to be consistent with the previous variances that have been approved. He asked for more information on the 30% number. Howe suggested that the discussion consider the disadvantages of increasing maximum coverage, if homeowners should be restricted in improving their homes and properties, and if the 30% number was the right one to start with. Howe showed that if using 30% as the maximum across the board would produce over 90% conformity. People could build larger homes, but they would also be on larger lots, so you would still be abiding by the Code. Ritchie responded that the 30% referenced the administrative variance threshold in the Code, which allows lot coverage of up to 30% for lots less than 8,000 square feet zoned RE. Ritchie added that the first option would make the variance threshold permanent. This would take away neighborhood input, making everything by -right, but it mirrors the current threshold. Brauneis stated that he did not think the main push was to bring lots out of non -conformity. Ritchie stated that one of the goals was to reduce non -conformities based on Council's request, while honoring neighborhood input and character.