Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />February 10, 2022 <br />Page 3 of 13 <br />the Marshall Fire and authorizing the Zoning Administrator to reconcile discrepancies to <br />facilitate rebuilding of the same. <br />Commissioner Questions of Staff. <br />Hoefner asks if people will be able to rebuild exactly as before or if there are <br />circumstances where they would not be allowed to do that. <br />Zuccaro says the intent is that for the most part, they will be able to rebuild as before. <br />Unless any work was done without a permit then they may not be able to rebuild as <br />exact as before. <br />Hoefner asks how the 10% interacts with a 40% lot coverage. <br />Zuccaro says we would take the square feet of the structure coverage. An example of <br />this is if it was a 2,000 square feet footprint that was allowed, we could administratively <br />approve 10% more so that would be an additional 200 square feet. <br />Hoefner asks that if somebody wanted more than 10% then they would have to go to <br />the Board of Adjustment. <br />Zuccaro says that is correct. <br />Hoefner asks if this gives us the discretion we need to help people to start rebuilding as <br />quickly as they can. Is this the right solution? <br />Zuccaro says yes, I think it is a good solution because we could have summary <br />regulations within a few weeks. Once the summary regulations are made, it would <br />become a regular document for that property that they could rely on, the same as a <br />PUD. <br />Hoefner asks if 10% is the right number or should the number be greater? <br />Zuccaro says he thinks the 10% would be adequate and above any adjustments that <br />they would make in the summaries. We intend to capture most of what is needed in the <br />summaries so 10% provides some additional flexibility for unique cases. <br />Hoefner says that if the variation in a particular neighborhood is from 25-50% of lot <br />coverage, is the summary going to go to the 50% or towards the middle? Where will it <br />fall? <br />Zuccaro says it is a good question and hopes that it does not go towards the tail end of <br />50%. We want to be careful that we do not create a standard that goes outside the <br />development's original character. <br />Diehl discloses that his house was destroyed. He asks what the check and balance is if <br />some homeowner's do not agree with their lot coverage standard. <br />Zuccaro says the Board of Adjustment would review any appeals if there is a <br />disagreement on a standard. <br />Krantz asks how the summary standards will become a legal document. She also asks <br />if we could apply this standard only to those who have lost their homes. <br />Zuccaro says we have not created the format for these summary standards, but we <br />may record these documents so that it runs with the land. It will be a permanent record <br />with the City. The ordinance says that it will only apply to houses affected by the fire. <br />Krantz asks if future homeowners who were not affected by the fire but bought a new <br />house that was burned down, would neighbors be able to have any input if they built <br />back bigger? <br />Zuccaro says no, we did not anticipate having that distinction and it would be difficult to <br />enforce it. We are not trying to create an advantage so that people can build more. We <br />are just trying to have them be able to build what they had before. <br />