Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />February 10, 2022 <br />Page 4 of 13 <br />Howe discloses that his house was destroyed. Do you think there should be a date of <br />expiration on this? Also, does this apply to houses that were not destroyed but their <br />houses had smoke damage? <br />Zuccaro says we want to apply the standard to the whole PUD area. The minor impact <br />variances can only apply to the fire affected rebuilds. <br />Howe asks if this is focused on the total loss houses. <br />Zuccaro says it is not just for the total loss houses. It would also affect damaged homes <br />as well. Staff can make sure we have the most updated fire map so that we can capture <br />the properties that have structural damage and need to rebuild. We were not planning <br />on homes that have ash or smoke damage. <br />Howe asks if staff will be defining damaged as structural damage. Do we need to define <br />damaged and specify that? <br />Zuccaro agrees and says that we may need to better define what damaged means. <br />Those that have smoke or ash damage do not have a need to rebuild their house so <br />they do not need that same relief as those have a destroyed house or structurally <br />damaged home. <br />Howe asks if there should be an expiration for this emergency ordinance. <br />Zuccaro says that it could make sense to have a deadline on the allow ability of <br />revising the summary documents. <br />Moline asks if he can speak on the extra staff workload and sustainability on staff in <br />order to do this and keep up with it. <br />Zuccaro says that this will be a lot of work but believes it will be the least amount of <br />work out of any other path. <br />Osterman asks what happens if the homeowner wants to build back smaller. <br />Zuccaro says anyone can choose to build back smaller as long as they are within their <br />yard and bulk standard. We do not have minimum home size standards. <br />Diehl asks what issues staff sees with this change. <br />Zuccaro says he is worried about some of the neighborhoods who do not have lot <br />coverage standards and historically have not had any. <br />Diehl asks if there was a scenario where a standard was published and homeowners <br />thought the standard was too big. Could they go through the route to appeal to the <br />Board of Adjustment? <br />Zuccaro says they could do that but they would need evidence either through the <br />zoning code or building records in order to appeal and support an established standard. <br />Diehl states that character of the neighborhood would not be a criteria in order to <br />appeal. <br />Zuccaro says that is correct. <br />Diehl states that it seems like there are more limitations for the appeal process and <br />therefore less of a check and balance in place. <br />Zuccaro says we do not intend to waive standards that are already in place. We should <br />not administratively create standards that have not existed before because that is a <br />fairness issue. <br />Zuccaro addresses neighborhood's that are straight zoned and neighborhoods that <br />have PUD's. Our zoning ordinance says that if it is not set in the PUD standard, you <br />have to go back and rely on the underlying zoning, so we have to address that. For <br />properties that are zoned Planned Community Zone District, there is a PUD. If there is <br />no standard, it references you back to the PCZD zoning. The Planned Community Zone <br />District does not have a standard for lot coverage or side yard setbacks. If it is not on <br />the general development plan, there is no standard to rely on. <br />