PL PACKET 03172009 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes February 17, 2009 Page 3 1 Chair Stromgren stated his position that the applicant did not provide the information requested 2 by the Commission and approval of the lot split would be allowing the applicant to bypass the 3 process. 4 5 Commissioner Jensen noted the approach of the Commission has been to provide a window for 6 approval or to request an extension of the applicant, further tabling the item. Denying the 7 application also leaves the applicant the option to request that the Council table the application 8 and take if off the clock. With the motion to recommend approval with conditions the applicant 9 will provide the requested information in the next couple of days if they are serious about the 10 request. 11 12 Commissioner Jenson stated his position that the Commission should uphold the principles of the 13 process and that the process the applicant was requested to follow is very simple. 14 15 Motion failed 2-3 (Stromgren,Heinis,Jenson). 16 17 Motion by Chair Stromgren, second by Commissioner Jenson, to recommend denial of the 18 administrative lot split for 3055 Old US Highway 8. 19 20 Chair Stromgren clarified that the recommendation for denial is not because the land 21 development would not be in the best interest of the community, but because the applicant has 22 not provided enough information to fully analyze the proposed plan. The recommendation for 23 denial is also consistent with the City Attorney's opinion that without additional information to 24 evaluate, approval would be endorsing a nonconforming condition. 25 26 Motion carried unanimously. 27 28 Chair Stromgren clarified that the recommendation for denial is not a comment on the 29 redevelopment; it is an objection to the process. 30 31 Commissioner Jensen noted in the past the Commission has discussed minimum lot size 32 requirements for a PUD. This proposed lot split would create two parcels in which each one 33 would be less than the 3-acre minimum. He questioned whether the blending of the two parcels 34 together in one application brings the size over the 3-acre minimum requirement. He suggested 35 further discussion by the Commission on whether 3 acres is still a reasonable PUD requirement. 36 37 Commissioner Jenson stated his support of additional discussion to analyze the PUD lot size 38 requirement. 39 40 Assistant City Manager Moore-Sykes indicated research can be done on the requirements in 41 cities of comparable size and whether it would be appropriate to lower the minimum size 42 requirement. 43 44 Consensus of the Commission was supportive of further discussion/analysis on the minimum lot 45 size requirements for PUD's on a future meeting agenda. 46