My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Minutes 2018 05 10
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2000-2019 Planning Commission
>
2018 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Minutes 2018 05 10
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/9/2020 1:27:07 PM
Creation date
7/9/2020 11:56:06 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Meeting Date
5/10/2018
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.
/
6
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 />May 10, 2018 <br />Page 5 of 6 <br />Moline clarified that one of the issues seemed to be that there is a burden on staff to deal with <br />non -conformities. <br />Zuccaro responded that there was an administrative burden, but that their concern was the <br />burden on City. The non -conformity rate prohibits any additions to buildings. For example, when <br />owners want to move a nonconforming structure, the way the Code is written they can't even if it <br />does not add to the overall lot coverage. <br />Hoefner stated that policy had already approved these houses and the law should match up <br />with what was allowed in policy. <br />Hsu suggested that the restrictions could be phrased in terms of added overall square footage. <br />The numbers on the scatterplot showed that each restriction ended up being about 2,400 <br />additional square feet above the existing square footage no matter the size. <br />Hoefner voiced his support for Hsu's idea. He suggested adding a color on the scatterplot for <br />approved variances. If they're mostly in the nonconforming area already, then they would not <br />need to be brought into the fold. <br />Howe noted that increasing lot coverage would not help the issue of affordability. <br />Moline asked Hsu if there would be a fixed square footage. <br />Hsu stated that would be the case unless your house was over 12,000 square feet or if you're <br />less than 8,000. <br />Howe reminded the Commission that the data currently did not reflect the decks or patios. <br />Ritchie stated that staff did not know if they could get deck data, but they would try. <br />Hsu stated that it would be really helpful and that staff could reflect estimates with mirror bars. <br />Brauneis asked for additional comments of staff. <br />Moline asked what the next steps would be. He thought an open house would be the best next <br />step for public outreach. <br />Ritchie stated that the open house would probably be best. <br />Brauneis asked if there would be a significant public posting in that case. <br />Zuccaro stated that there would probably be direct contact through postcards for affected <br />properties. <br />Brauneis added that neighbors would also be an important group to contact. He also liked the <br />webpage idea. <br />Sheree Burcar, 1881 West Choke Cherry Drive, stated that HOA guidelines might be impacted. <br />She suggested that decks could be handled differently than other kinds of additions to homes. <br />She added that the meeting had been very educational. <br />Zuccaro responded that staff could explore treating decks differently than other types of <br />additions to homes. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.