Laserfiche WebLink
I�ern No: 9 <br />�ee�ing Da��: Auctust 20, 2003 <br />i��� csf �usi�e�s: Discussion <br />It ; � / ;_ �•� , ;�� <br />_ . <br />�o; Nlounds View Planning Commission <br />From: James Ericson, Communiiy D�velopmenfi Director <br />I��rn iltlelS�abje�ta Review Council Priorities Regarding Possible Code <br />Amendmenfis <br />�,. , _ ��� � .� �� � � �.�� . <br />Through a series of goal-setting sessions and meetings to review priorities, the City <br />Council identified possible amertdments to the City Code, which are being presented to <br />the Planning Commission fior comment and possible action. <br />The possible amendmei�ts are as #ollows: <br />1. Amend the City Cod� to increase the minimum square foofage requirements for a <br />sin�le-family home. <br />2. Amend #he City Code fo suppori and encourage life-cycle housing and upper-end <br />condominiums. <br />--' =- ' 3. Amend the City Code to restrici or prohibit fasf-food drive-throughs. <br />4. Amend Zoning Code with regard to permitfed uses <br />�- . <br />The first proposed amendment is fairly straighfforward—increase fhe minimum floor areas for <br />new homes. Currenfily a one–story home is required to have at least 960 square feet of first <br />floor area. A two-story home woufd need a minimum first fioor area of 780 square feet. <br />These areas do not incfude basements or upper stories. Should the area requirements be <br />increased to prohibit smaller homes? <br />The second proposed amendment is much more involved, in that there are a multitude of <br />options that could be employed fio encourage the deveiopment of life-cycle housing and <br />upper-end condominiums. One option fihat was recently adoptec# was to eiiminate the CUP <br />requirement from townhames. Other optians might inciude dertsi#y bonuses, fee reductions, <br />local tax rebates, etc. Another idea would be to allow detached townhomes (single family <br />detached dwellings with minimal setbacks on individually platted lots surrounded by common <br />areas.) <br />The third proposed amendmeni is to prohibit or restrict fasf food drive��hrus. This could be <br />done by requiring a CUP for drivewthrus so that ihe Commissian and Council would have an <br />opportunity fio review the concept priorto �Ilowing the development. While an outright ban is <br />possible, I'm �ot sure that course of aciion would be advisable. <br />