Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/06/2020

Home

6.02: Public Hearing: Consider Ordinance #20-09: Revisions to Section 117-349 Related to Accessory Uses and Structures Public Hearing Chairperson Bauer called the public hearing to order at 7:10 p.m. Presentation Planning Consultant Maass presented the staff report stating that staff recommends that the Planning Commission record that Ordinance #20-09 be introduced by the City Council. Commissioner Woestehoff referenced the chart showing the parcel size and maximum allowed size. He commented that in rows two and three, he would reference that it would go from .5 to .99 acres so that it does not confuse the one-acre size. Senior Planner McGuire Brigl stated that after the Comprehensive Plan is updated, the code must be updated to match that. She noted that the Commission also directed staff to reduce the amount of text in the code and eliminate areas of redundancy. She stated that this process has begun, and the Commission will continue to review the updates as completed by staff. Commissioner VanScoy referenced the swimming pool section, section C, number three and stated that he would like clarification on the description of the fence as mentioned. Planning Consultant Maass provided the location where details would be found related to permanent fencing and provided additional clarification on the numbering. Commissioner VanScoy referenced accessory buildings and asked if the requirement would be to have a similar finish to the home for all accessory building. Planning Consultant Maass confirmed that the requirement would be to be architecturally compatible. He stated that staff has been implementing that to ensure that the color of the accessory building matches the color of the home. He stated that metal siding would be allowed in the R-1 Rural Developing district, but the metal siding would still need to be the same color as the home. He noted that the metal paneling would not be allowed in the R-1 MUSA or R-1 Villa districts. Commissioner VanScoy referenced the changes related to conditional use. He noted that there were items listed to consider when determining whether a variance could be issued. He stated that those appear to still be valid questions when considering a conditional use permit. Planning Consultant Maass stated that staff recommended removal of those is because there is a specific scorecard for the approval of a variance. He stated that if the Commission feels strongly that the language should be retained in the ordinance, staff could do that. He stated staff feels that a conditional use permit is a stronger tool for flexibility when compared to a variance. Planning Commission/ July 9, 2020 Page 4 of 9