03-27-1990 PC MIN - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Minutes 3/27/90 Page 7 e FOR GRANTING A VARIANCE. COMMISSIONER MORTON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 11. Ordinance Amendment/Reduction of Minimum Size and Fronta/:te of Sinde Family Lots in a Multifamily Zone by R.E.P. Ltd/P.H. Steve Rohlf, Building and Zoning Administrator, explained that what is being requested is to reduce the minimum lot size and width for single family lots within multifamily zones (R-2b, R3, R4) from a minimum single family lot size of 10,000 square feet to 6,000 square feet, and to reduce the minimum width of the those single family lots within the single family zone from 80 feet wide to 60 feet wide. The reason for the request is to fill a need for smaller single family lots to accommodate starter homes. Gary Santwire felt this requested lot size would &ccommodate just about any type of housing. Mr. Santwire indicated if the housing is done wrong it can be just as bad on an 80 ft. lot as on a 60 ft. lot, and that this is a problem we cannot control. He indicated that this amendment would apply only in zones where it would create less density and more green space. Chairman Kimball opened the public hearing. No one appeared for or against the request. Chairman Kimball closed the public hearing. e Chairman Kimball indicated he has taken a look at this issue City wide and he did not like the impact it would have on the City. Chairman Kimball indicated for this reason he would vote against this request. Commission Nadeau was in agreement with Chairman Kimball. COMMISSIONER KIMBALL MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF OF THE APPLICANTS REQUEST FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT. COMMISSION JOHNSON SECONDED THE REQUEST. THE REQUEST CARRIED 6-0. 12. Preliminary Plat/Auburn Commons/Sin/:tle Family Lots/by R.E.P. Ltd./P.H. Gary Santwire requested that items 12 and 13 be heard separately. Chairman Kimball requested an interpretation from Tim Keane, City Attorney. e Mr. Keane indicated that he had not encountered a request like this before working on either the development side or the City staff side. Mr. Keane indicated that he was not aware of any ordinance or statute that specifically addresses the fact that you may consider only one application for a development proposal for a parcel at a given time. He felt that the Council cannot approve two preliminary plats for a gi ven parcel, because preliminary plat approval at the council level carries with it certain vested rights that are protected for a period of a year. Mr. Keane recommended that the Planning Commission consider one or both plats, but he will advise the council that they should act on only one. Mr. Keane further recommended that the Planning Commission should consider either implementing a policy or an ordinance amendment to address this issue so that an applicant may have only one development proposal for his property at a given time.