Laserfiche WebLink
Board Member Bentz questioned if there are similar regulations for rural lots. <br /> <br />City Planner Anderson noted the minimum lot size is two and half acres. The minimum setbacks <br />are slightly larger for rural lots. He commented that a Planned Unit Development would have <br />more ability to deviate from the City rules. He said as developments are considered, the City is <br />becoming more aware to be sure the developer plans accordingly. The City is doing all it can on <br />some lots that were lawfully created. <br /> <br /> <br />Board Member Bentz commented some of the larger landowners had concerns. He asked if there <br />are any larger landowners in the MUSA district that would be affected by the specific issue of the <br />wetlands requirement. <br /> <br /> <br />City Planner Anderson answered there would need to be a detailed analysis. There would likely <br />be some impact in the MUSA. However, he said he could think of only one or two tracts of land <br />that would be affected. <br /> <br /> <br />Board Member Bentz inquired if the lot size can be split from the setback requirement in the <br />example on the screen. <br /> <br />City Planner Anderson replied it cannot be. Without the wetland area, the lot would not meet the <br />minimum required size. There are lot frontage requirements as well. As part of the development <br />process, the developer could propose to plat that area as an outlot, which is unbuildable. This <br />could result in losing a buildable lot in a development. This would have an impact on the total <br />number of units in a development. He said he believes this Ordinance will provide a greater benefit <br />to the future homeowner going forward. <br /> <br />City Planner Anderson noted the language for the lot depth development is not yet in the <br />Ordinance, and will be clarified. <br /> <br />Motion by Board Member Lewis and seconded by Board Member Bentz to recommend City <br />Council adopt Ordinance #16-03 to include lot depth parameters as determined by staff. <br /> <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Acting Chairperson Valentine, Board Member Lewis, Bentz, <br />Bernard, and Covart. Voting No: None. Absent: Chairperson Stodola, Board Member Hiatt. <br /> <br />5.03: Consider Ordinance #16-4 to Amend City Code Section 2-159 (Duties, <br />Responsibilities, and Objectives) to Incorporate the Principals of the Environmental <br />Policy Board's Statement of Purpose <br /> <br /> <br />City Planner Anderson presented the staff report. He noted Section E in the Ordinance was <br />updated and item numbers 6 and 7 were added in that section, as noted in the meeting packet. He <br />said Staff would like to present the changes to the Planning Commission before it is introduced to <br />City Council. This would come before the Planning Commission in March, and come before the <br />Council shortly after. <br /> <br />Motion by Board Member Bernard, and seconded by Board Member Lewis to recommend that the <br />City Council adopt Ordinance #16-4 incorporating the EPB's role in reviewing certain Land Use <br />Applications and the Comprehensive Plan Update into City Code. <br /> <br />Environmental Policy Board / February 22, 2016 <br />Page 4 of 6 <br /> <br /> <br />