HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-09-2008 - Supplemental MaterialsTo: Mayor
Medina City Council
From: Medina Planning Commission
CC: staff
Date: 12/22/2007
Re: Cot Coverage for Undersized Lots
At the November 13, 2007 City Council Meeting the Planning Commission was requested to discuss lot
coverages for undersized lots within existing zoning districts, and return with a recommendation.
Outlined below is the Planning Commission's recommendation.
Larry Frazier, Interim Planning Director presented to the Commission in the attached N6uember 27, 2007
memo an overview of the council's direction, and three potential alternatives as discussion points. After a
lengthy discussion of the topic and the evaluation of the staff alternatives the Planning 6mmission came
to a consensus on the following recommendation.
The Planning Commission recommends City Council adopt a change to the zoning code that addresses lot
coverage in the R-16 zone. The lot coverage in R-16 is and shall remain 25% for lots 16,000 square feet
and above. For all lots under 16,000 square feet, there shall be a proportionate lot cov€rage bonus
calculated as zero at 16,000 square feet and increasing to a maximum of 5% for lots 10,600 square feet
and less.
This sliding scale provides for greater lot coverage on the smaller lots in R-16. The additional percentage
increase in lot coverage is not believed to create larger houses than conforming lots as the increased
percentage on the smaller lot still provides for a smaller footprint overall. The rationales behind the sliding
scale was to preserve proportionality and parity in lot value in the neighborhoods and eliminate what
would have been an anomaly at the break point. For example,if the bonus threshold Wre set at 5% on
lots 10,000 square feet and less, the owner of the 10,001 square foot lot would be allowr�d 5% less lot
coverage, potentially creating an anomaly in the proportionality of the neighborhood structures and
economic value of the lot.
The Planning Commission rejected as a solution'the notion of the site plan review process as the Site Plan
Review Process currently on the books provides for changing the site of the structure on the lot to
minimize impacts on the neighbors. With the small lots there isn't room to move structures so this
process wouldn't create the desired outcome. The existing ordinance would have to be significantly
reconstructed to apply to these circumstances as well since it deals mostly with the coricept of situation
of the structure on the lot. The Commission also rejected as a solution the notion of establishing a new
Zoning District. This seemed to create patchwork zoning throughout the city and lacked the
proportionality of structures and parity of lot value over one square foot of land area, which appeared
irrational.
As a result of this discussion the Planning Commission discovered an anomaly in the R-20 & R-30 zones at
the 16,000 square foot lot. Currently the 16,000 square foot or smaller lot owners in R-20 and R-30 have
a 25% lot coverage allowance for a 25 foot height limit where the 16,001 and larger lot owners have a
21% lot coverage allowance for a 25 foot height limit. This would produce circumstances where two
adjacent lots of very similar size would have two dissimilar structures. The Planning Corn Mission
recommends the City Council adopt a similar change to the zoning ordinance where there shall be a
proportionate lot coverage bonus calculated at zero for lots 16,000 square feet and smaller and 4% for
lots 20,000 square feet and larger in only those circumstances where the height limit is 25 feet. This again
seeks to create proportionality of structures and parity of lot value.
a CIW OF MEDINA
Office of the Mayor
Date: November 13, 2007
TO: COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: MAYOR ADAM
SUBJECT: LOT COVERAGE RE: UNDERSIZED LOTS
Discuss and provide direction to the City Manager
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
It is requested the council discuss the following proposals to determine if there is
sufficient interest to schedule a public hearing to more fully review the proposals.
In sections 17.20, 17.24, and 17.28 of the MCC, where ever any reference to structural
coverage occurs, it should be modified for all lots less than 10,000 sf to a coverage of 30%,
provided the height of all buildings is limited to not more than 25 feet. no other changes in
minimum requirements, ie. setbacks, are proposed.
In section 2.78.065 of the MMC, an additional requirement is proposed to limit structural
coverage variances to a maximum of 5% of the standard for all lots that qualify for the 30%
structural coverage.
This proposal will allow the owners of very small lots in Medina more options when
planning new construction or remodeling an existing structure. These proposed changes will
affect about 15% of the lots in medina.
DRAFT
MOTION BLAZEY AND SECOND BIGLOW TO ADOPT ORDINANCE ACCEPTING
2008 BUDGET. MOTION CARRIED 4-2 (PHELPS AND RUDOLPH OPPOSED) AT 8:09
PM.
An amendment to the motion was proposed by Phelps and seconded by Rudolph to
utilize $100,000 from the City's reserves to fund the Granicus program. The amendment
failed by a vote of 2-4.
Hearing Examiner Decisions: Lot CoverageNariances (8:11 pm)
Adam introduced and summarized initiative. He conveyed the City Attorney advised the
ounce o iscus ion on e ma er dunng a public hearing since it would involve
c anges to the City's land use code. Mayor opene oor to public comment at 8:15 pm.
Resident Heija Nunn agreed the procedure was a nice way to approach the topic and
suggested discussion on next topic to follow suit. She said the proposal was nice and
the City should encourage people to make changes within their budgets and within
neighborhood character. Ms. Nunn suggested an R-9 zone, a review of setback
requirements, and a review of variances from the past five to ten years. She stated
change should be in place to solve practical problems for homeowners that desire
simple changes and hoped the matter would go to the community fora lengthy public
discourse.
Resident Pat Boyd said initiative was a great idea and it would make the community
more approachable. He favored recommendation and added that he would like to see
the Planning Commission take a look at it. Mr. Boyd suggested it could change the
character of the neighborhood for the good.
Evergreen Point Road resident Mark Nelson favored Council's review and expressed a
preference to receiving input from the Planning Commission, as well. He said there are
several lots slightly above 10,000 square feet that should also be considered in
proposal and suggested Council consider look at a sliding scale from a 16,000 square
foot lot at 25% lot coverage to an 8,000 square foot lot.
Mayor closed floor to comment and Council discussion followed. Council requested
Planning Commission look at item without looking at reducing setbacks and without a
sliding scale, unless there would be a rationale for that.
Historical Use Permit Ordinance Revision (8:30 pm)
Lawrence introduced and summarized initiative. Mayor opened floor to public comment
at 8:44 pm.
Resident Mark Nelson favored moving the Historical Use Permit and Special Use Permit
process to the Hearing Examiner for the reasons outlined in the meeting packet. He
expressed that a Hearing Examiner may not understand a proposal's impact to the
community and may not apply additional conditions. He said he likes to have a body of
citizens, such as the Planning Commission, review a project and to receive public input
to know how a project could impact the community. He stated his concern about the
City Council Minutes November 13, 2007
Page 4
501 EVERGREEN POINT ROAD • POST OFFICE BOX 144 • MEDINA, WASHINGTON 98039-0144
TELEPHONE 425-233-6400 • FAX 425-454-8490 • POLICE 425-233-6420 • www.madina-wa.gov
Date: November 27, 2007
To: Medina Planning Commission
From: Larry K. Frazier, AICP
Interim Planning Director
Subject: Lot Coverage's for Undersized Lots
At the November 13, 2007 City Council meeting Mayor Adam introduced a discussion
regarding lot coverages for undersized lots within existing zoning districts. Specifically
the Mayor requested that the Council determine if there is a need to review how the City
treats undersized lots within the residential zoning districts. Please see the Mayor's memo
as well as the minutes of the Council discussion on this matter.
The basic problem is that there are lots within the existing residential zoning districts
which are nonconforming. That is, they do not meet the minimum lot sizes in terms of
square footage, and create difficulties for property owners wanting to build homes on
their property. The Council generally expressed, during their deliberations, that there is a
need to provide more flexibility in terms of lot coverages to property owners of non-
conforming lots.
Council at its November 13"' meeting referred the issue to the Planning Commission for
their review, and recommendations as to how to deal with the lot coverage for undersized
lots within the City's Zoning Districts.
As a way for the Planning Commission to begin their discussions I have outlined below
several alternatives that the Planning Commission, alight want to consider in dealing with
nonconforming undersized lots as directed by the City Council.
Alternative One — Residential Site Plan Review Process
Many of the exiting provisions of the Site Plan review process embodied in the City's
current code could be utilized to deal with small lots in terms of coverage issues. The site
plan review process may provide more flexibility in dealing with small lots, because it is
a design process as opposed to utilizing fixed development standards. The current
provisions of the zoning code inhibit small lots as it relates setbacks, height of buildings
and lot coverage. Fixed standards inhibit creative solutions to potential designs
considerations. In addition, applications for site plan reviews could be an administrative
process with an appeal of the staff s decision to the Planning Commission or the Hearing
Examiner.
Alternative Two — Overlay Zoning for Nonconforming Lots
It is possible under Washington State Planning Laws to enact a specific overlay zone
which works with the existing zoning designations. An overlay zone for lot coverage
would deal with, and put in place a set of code standards which would be unique to the
issues for lots that do not meet the ininfi um square footage zoning requirements of the
R-16, R 20 and R-30 districts. For example, the setback requirements within each zoning
designation could be averaged to allow the placement of structures more flexibility as to
their placement on a property_ Also it would be possible to allow for administrative
adjustments to setbacks on lots up to a certain percentage.
Alternative Three — Establish a R-10 Zoning District
It is my understanding that some years back the Planning Commission worked on the
idea of establishing an R-10 Zoning District, It is also my understanding that the City
Council at the time turned down the idea of enacting an R-10 Zone. Said zoning district if
enacted would recognize the nonconforming lots and making them legal lots for building
purposes. This alternative would require that the Medina Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Element be amended. It would also require that a new zoning district be prepared
specifically to implement the 1.0,000 square foot density.
Recommendation:
That the Planning Commission develop recommendations to be forwarded to the City
Council as to how Medina should proceed to address the issue of Lot Coverages for
Undersized Lots.
Attachments
o ous ,o mcO use ocn mc00000 00000
OI
p0
O �3 W r o cn m LO rn O O O M N ti O o O 4 ul O If1 O
O m dl DD r 1p Cp O w ]� ul m
00 q ( ay m OJ
tr' ni rl (d ce ce m Ki lfl' m' (6 m ce N N' cr Ni N' N v-r cl
> N
p U
U �
Oo 3
� O
O ¢
�
a
O
a
a
a
,E
E
C
A In �q m ri In V1 O Oo 1- O ma ,Il O N o m O
10 N m m co N t0 O M U1 Oo O r, N O r m N m
o
r N N N m m q' if V Gr sn v q cy q' M m m m
O
m
V
0o
�
G
m
R
U �
a
m
m
m
m
o
m
a
p
n.
d
00.000000000000 00000a 0
m
oI;too f4in0 usmmr.-iusa000 00000
o o o sa ri N N ro ai ,ri C d' In vi ui ui ui ui vi ui ui
U
Om 3
C
m o
O m
a
0
a
or o,
obo
a1-1m 14on un vm oLn 000ma
O Oo r to Yl cf N c or' P to' O W f� N � N a-i m a0
t m m m m m m m m NN' Nm N N N' N N N' a-/ cl
> u
U C
¢ 3
� o
O ¢
O
d
U
O
O ul O u) O u5 O ul O
O r m N O afl N O
3
0
m
,nvery vmmmm
u
Q> LL
¢
v N
y
a
a
O m
o
a
O
0.
0,
N
O O O O o 0 0 o o o o O 0 �, 0 a, 0 � aQ,
po
Ln o n m sn m N to n
W
Up
R o
m m
a
0
d
qw0
O N O to O ul O Efl O [f1 O I!1 O of O to O IA O N O
i
O corn lO IC m 'J N cl O or w ,Ofl frfl N ei O Oo r 10 Lq
> y
V ofreM m m M M M N N N' N N N' N N H H H H
L
U �
4`!
to m
N 3
u
C a
i
V
LL
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0
o O O O O O O O o O O O O O O O O O o O O
O al1 O af1 O tf1 O N O N O V1 O. ul O atl O all O ut O
,O afi ,A V-o M M N N ti N o 0 m m co w n n ,D W
vs♦
cl cl a-1 ci a-1 ri a-1 a-i N N ci ci
as
N
En
J
to
to
d'
3
0
m
V
s
O
C
ati
ro
0
ut
O
N
E
m
0
m
c
N
C p
o �
N m
� N
m O
L O
C ,O
W
v m
C O
v �
� N
m �
m C
m a'
� � O
m C N
a-,
o p �
O 'o LL
O O O'
H C ++
O 0 1
_ O
o E
m
0
c c v
a- ti g
o — a
�
W m
mvd� y
u01 m io
y —
CL
m p E N
E O
o d
0
s+ C y O
h O 7 ti
_ C
o m
E n C
Q E m
Di U
a c c a
• C � U o
oc
m .LO-� o
U nV. K p
a m an „
6 Q W A
0 a y
o Q o
C a. Q �
a`n.a�
CQ
In i
�
tail
jFj
fjj
E �5 �6
o
41
0
ca
ol
v) 0 bG
0 C 0
o cu
L)
Ln
0 0
cn
tko
fN
�r
1 41
4�
coc4 to
o
C)
C>
c) F
cp, P-
0
VV 4� 40 lr�
te� fn
0
0 41 4-
o
En
bn cn m
fu
a0
41
en
C.
ol,
--LLL
0 0 0 Q 0 C) C)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C)C> � 0
Lrt Ern, LO Ln LO
fy� 0 cv� rl� cl� I -I
aZeJaAOD PaM011V
OM O Ln o to o Ln o Ln 00 am o Ln O fn o Ln ow am o m am o In o to o Ln o 00
LL
O r� LO N O 1`- 0 N O r� Ln N O N Ln N O I, In N O r- to d' V M Cr Cr O N 0 N O r� Ln N O
cr
u^ M N r1 O of r; LD Ln M N -10 m 1- LO LO M N a-f O r- Ln M eA Ol 1` Ln O W tl- LO Ln M N ri O
O [n
t` r f� 1` r, tD to t0 to t0 Lo tO to Ln Ln 1n to to Ln M Ln C V [YI M M V cf M M fY1 fY] M M M
m
o2i v
o
N f6
Q
�
N Q
KA
O of
a uo
O
t
O- >
O
Z
Ln
0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m a m o m o M
(14
Ll"-
O w W Cr N O w (O O m O IT N O w to 'cr N Q W r-w Lo LO r-w
m
N�-L�-1r1.-ilrlOoaQomrnmrnrnf>0000acoaL�LOLn�rMNrt
B
a �
fV C
Q
an
In
a
to tto
R
o
M
O >
d U
G
N
N N N N N oI�z N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N a N N N N N N N N
O O O O O O O O O O a 0 0 O O a 0 0 0 0 0 Ln O Ln O LO O Ln O O O O O O O O O
M N
d' (Y; M N N H <4 O O O O O O O O O O
f?2{ 7
O c
N O
m
T3 N
m bi)
N
O �
n >
O o
a` u
Mp
O Lo a Ln o in O Ln O Ln O Ln a m O m O to a Ln O Ln O m a Ln O Liz O m O Ln O m a in O
Li
( rnMMw w 1-r-w W LnLnI;r Zt MM"NtitiQaMMwwr,NwaNMNor,Ln"0
M 1-1 a M W !` (O Ln d M" 1-1 O M m r� w M cr M N O O w N W Ln cT O M I, LO Ln M N H O
>
lO ( LB 1n Ln Lr Lr Ln Ln to L(i Ln Ln leI% cT d cr V d IF d m tY1 M rrcrf rg M M ct1 M M rrLYI cO
LL
V cy
O Ln
M
Z
pM�
�
_
N ?,
Ln
O
O
M
�
U
N NN NNN NN N NNNNNN NNN N NN NNN NN NN No\'N N 'OR NN NN
O
N
- <-1 ,' e-1 .-1 a-1 .-t .-I - .-1 H . 1 c i c, H c-1 .-1 H H c-f ri rt r1 c-1 c1 H r-1 -1 to Ln Lo Ln En Ln Ln Ln Lo
m
N N N N N N" N [V N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
M
i
O 3
N O
c m
a �
L
>
o
v
0 o Q o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O d O a Ln Ln Ln 0 0 Lo Ln 0 0 Lo 0 Lo a 0 Ln
o a a a a a a a a a a a 6
O to Q Ln Q Ln O Ln O to O Ln O Ln O Ln O Ln O Ln O Ln O in O in O Ln O Lr'1 O Ln O to O Ln O
a a
LL
O (7 O oc UQ n n LO LD to Lr � cr f'n N N c-i - O O a Oi 00 Lb r, r- (6 (L) Ln Lr of e m M N N
a
M N fN N N N N N N N N N N N N. N N N N N H H H H H H ri c-t H H H H t-i H H -L
N
cn
O
J
0
m
a�
0
N
a
a
H"
tko
In
CL
CL
L44
g itt
4—
s
tIL
AAA
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 C3 0 0 I
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ce rl� Le Uil rl�
C,
CITY OF MEDINA
Planning Commission Meeting
November 27, 2007 Medina City Hall
7:00 p.m. 501 Evergreen Point Road
CALL TO ORDER
Bret Jordan called the Planning Commission meeting of November' 27, 2007, to
order at 7:08 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Molly Gaudy, Bret Jordan, Jeff Price, Karen Sparks
Absent: Kirk Beardsley (excused)
Judie O'Brien (excused)
Jim Frank (excused)
Staff Present: Larry Frazier, Interim Director of Development Services
Pam Greytak, Administrative Assistant
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Jordan introduced Interim Director of Development Services, Larry 1=razier.
MINUTES
MOTION PRICE /SECOND SPARKS TO APPROVE OCTOBER 23, 2007
MEETING MINUTES. MOTION PASSED 4-0, 7:08 PM
AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION
On behalf of the City Council, Mayor Miles Adam thanked commissioners for
volunteering their time to the city.
OTHER BUSINESS
Lot Coverage for Undersized Lots (7.11 pm)
Commissioners reviewed Lot Coverage for Undersized Lots chart that former
Planning Commissioner, Mark Nelson and Mayor Miles Adam created in 2001.
Jordan indicated that as of 2001, there were 463 lots that were less than 16,000
square feet, which were considered to be substandard lots. Of those; 336 lots
were in R-16 zone and 127 were in R-20 and R30 zones.
Jordan explained that homeowners who have a 16,001 square foot lot in the R-
20 zone are entitled to 21 percent lot coverage, while 15,999 squar"e feet
qualifies for 25 percent lot coverage. Jordan pointed out that this is an inequity in
the code that needs to be addressed. Jordan affirmed that the original intent was
to provide relief to lot owners in the R-20 and R-30 zones whose lots were less
than 16,000 square feet. He said it was also meant to give these ptoperty owners
more lot coverage so they could have similar size structure as owners of lots
greater than 16,000 square feet.
Mayor Adam confirmed for Sparks that approximately 160 Medina lots were
10,000 square feet or less, and twelve lots were 8,000 square feet or less.
Residential Site Plan Review Process (7.18 pm)
Commissioners spoke about Variances, Hearing Examiner and Board of
Adjustment.
Jordan explained that the chart was proposing a sliding scale. He reported that
according to the chart, on an 8,000 square foot lot at 30 percent lot coverage
there was a 2,400 square foot footprint, and at 25 percent there was a 2,000
square foot footprint. He said it was proposing a sliding scale where an 8,000
square foot lot got a 5 percent coverage bonus, 12,000 square foot lot got less
and a 16,000 square foot lot got only a .85 percent bonus. He stat&d the
numbers were not vastly different than what is currently permitted.
Jordan affirmed that presently the Site Plan Review Process includes a public
hearing similar to Construction Mitigation. Jordan also reiterated that it does not
offer a lot of predictability, and that currently it is only required for kits over
40,000 square feet.
Jordan explained difference between Variances and Site Plan Review Process.
Sparks and Jordan discussed costs of'Variances and Site Plan Reviews. Sparks
spoke about another jurisdiction that had a flexible design standard. Jordan
explained concept of minor deviations.
Jordan confirmed for Sparks that the only time neighbors are allowed to
comment publicly is during Site Plan Review, Variances and Construction
Mitigation.
Goudy and Jordan spoke about the City Council's rationale and possible concern
behind sliding scale idea. Jordan explained that there was difficulty in creating
sliding scale that covered all eventualities without creating a lot of unintended
consequences.
Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2007
Page 2
R-10 Zoning District (7:36 pm)
Jordan explained that creating an R-10 Zoning District was previously discussed
in 1999-2001, but the City Council asked the Planning Commission to stop
working on it.
Frazier indicated that establishing an R-10 zone would require changing all
zoning in that area, as well as Medina's Comprehensive Plan.
After further discussion, Commissioners decided not to recommend creating an
R-10 Zoning District.
Overlay Zoning for Nonconforming Lots (7:39 pm)
Jordan indicated that sliding scale and overlay zone accomplish essentially the
same thing. Jordan discussed approaching the issue from an overlay standpoint
and figure out what size would trigger an overlay. He also mentioned the need to
determine what special considerations need to be made to affected homeowners
and how to handle the bump that would get created.
Price spoke about designing a sliding scale formula where residents with lots
16,000 square feet and under could apply for up to five percent bonus lot
coverage through a Site Plan Review. He stressed that this would be a
predictable solution.
Commissioners discussed in detail the Overlay Zoning alternative for lot
coverage on small lots, which included the number of small lots in Medina, bulk,
building height, neighbors, and site plan requirements for Site Plan Review.
Jordan suggested applying Site Plan Review as a two prong process where
homeowners could either build to existing code, or pursue a Site Plan Review
where they could apply for up to 5 percent greater lot coverage.
Sparks spoke about providing some certainty for property owners.
Jordan and Price discussed details regarding mathematical calculations, sliding
scale, Site Plan Review and Variances.
Jordan indicated that he wanted to break recommendation down into two parts;
one for each R-16 and R-20.
Jordan concluded commissioners were recommending that lots 16,000 square
feet and less could apply for a lot coverage bonus of a sliding scale, which would
be determined to be 0 percent at 16,000 square feet and 5 percent at 10,000
square feet and under, through Site Plan Review process in an R-16 zone.
Planning Commission Minutes Nbvember 27, 2007
Page 3
Jordan commented that in the R-20 and R-30 zones there needed to be a scale
for both 16,000 square feet lots and under and one for lots 16,000 to 30,000
square feet.
Jordan and Price spoke about the R-20 and R-30 having two height limits.
Jordan explained that commissioners were focusing on 25foot height limit since
it was the only place lot coverage amount varied. He said with higher height limits
lot coverage goes way down.
Price and Jordan discussed proposing giving property owners at 25 foot height
level in R-20 and R-30 zones the same as what they did in R-16 zone.
Commissioners agreed that a Site Plan Review asks for public input regarding
siting and bulk; provides predictability; and protection for surrounding home
owners.
Jordan requested Frazier provide a staff analysis of how site plan review
ordinance may need.to be altered in order to be useful for proposed application.
He explained that there may be some language in the Municipal Code that might
need to be updated to accommodate recommendation.
After detailed conversation, Commissioners decided to provide same R-16
recommendation for R-20 zone with 16,000 to 20,000 square foot lots. After
discussing it further, they decided not to make a recommendation regarding R-30
lot coverage bonus.
Jordan stated he would complete a draft memo and Excel spread sheet for
review at next Planning Commission meeting.
Calculation of Side Setbacks for R-20 and R-30 Lots without Penalty for Private
Lane Width (8:31 pm)
Jordan explained there is a perceived inequity in the code in that in R-20 and R-
30 zones the side setback requirement is based on overall width of the lot. He
stated this is unfair to lot owners with the private lane easement since this area
counts as part of the lot width but not part of the lot calculation.
Jordan noted that in R-20 district the minimum setback from any part of the
building shall be ten feet or 15 percent of site width which ever is greater.
Jordan indicated that commissioners could recommend either changing how side
yard setback is calculated, which he said has the implication of drawing
structures closer to private lanes. He commented that this forms the question of
"Do we want to create more of a mix between structures and vehicles?" Jordan
affirmed the other way to address issue is to include private lane when
calculating lot coverage, which he explained would allow a greater use of the
area that is in current setback.
Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2007
Page 4
Commissioners discussed easements, surveys, setbacks, and lane width
construction.
Jordan. stated commissioners could leave setback alone and address the
buildable area. He noted that extending the buildable area inside the footprint
would solve the problem. Jordan explained that the unfairness of the setback
creates in essence a smaller footprint because property owners have a greater
setback from their property line to the building than their neighbor does.
Jordan indicated that commissioners did not want buildings to be closer to drive
aisles. However, he said they did want to provide relief for owners who can not
build the same size house as neighbors even though they have the same size
lot. He pointed out that commissioners could increase the lot coverage by
including the private lane in lot coverage calculation.
Commissioners discussed lanes that bisect property, and differendes between
driveways and private lanes.
Commissioners agreed to recommend that private lanes be considered part of lot
for purposes of calculating lot coverage, but they would leave setbacks alone.
Jordan asked Frazier to report back with example of application in three or four of
the circumstances.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION PRICE/SECOND GOUDY TO ADJOURN NOVEMBER 27, 2007
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 9:00 PM. MOTION CARRIED 4-0
The Planning Commission meeting of November 27, 2007, adjourned at 9:00 pm.
The next Planning Commission meeting will be held on Thursday, December 20, 2007.
Minutes taken by:
Pam Greytak
Administrative Assistant
*Minutes approved 1212012007
Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2007
Page 5
CITY OF MEDINA
Planning Commission Meeting
December 20, 2007 Medina City Nall
7:00 p.m. 501 Evergreen Point Road
CALL TO ORDER
Bret Jordan called the Planning Commission meeting of December 20, 2007, to
order at 7:02 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Jim Frank, Molly Goudy, Bret Jordan, Jeff Price,
Karen Sparks
Absent: Kirk Beardsley (excused)
Judie O'Brien (excused)
Staff Present: Larry Frazier, Interim Planning Director
Pam Greytak, Administrative Assistant
ANNOUNCEMENTS
No Announcements
MINUTES
MOTION SPARKS/SECOND GOUDYTO APPROVE NOVEMBER 27, 2007-MEETING
MINUTES AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED 5-0, (7:09 PM)
AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION
No Audience Participation
OTHER BUSINESS
Lot Coverage for Undersized Lots (7:10 pm)
Commissioners discussed Jordan's draft proposal regarding Lot Coverage for
Undersized Lots. They also evaluated Price's supporting graph. Commissioners
agreed on several modifications to both documents.
Commissioners spoke about presenting proposal to the City Council.
MOTION GOUDYfSECOND PRICE TO FORWARD THE AMENDED LOT
COVERAGE PROPOSAL TO CITY COUNCIL. MOTION CARRIED 5-0 (7.34 PM)
Side Setbacks for R-20 and R-30 Lots with Private Lanes for Access (7:35 pm)
Frazier reviewed and explained illustrative examples of Lot Area Coverage
Based on Net Lot Size for zones R-16, R-20 and R-30. He also answered
Commissioner's inquiries regarding the subject.
Frazier pointed out that 20 years ago the ordinance was same as
Commissioner's current proposal.
Jordan provided Frank with background information as to reason topic was being
discussed. Frank discussed his experiences with obtaining variances.
Frazier stated that the Public Work's director indicated that 15 feet was the
average size for private lanes that now exist within the city. Therefore, 15 feet
was used in his illustrations.
Frazier stated he would include a draft a memo with drawings for Commissioners
review_
Frazier explained definition of easements.
Frank discussed hammerhead turnarounds for use by fire department.
Price requested that staff research the reason ordinance was modified 20 years
ago.
MOTION PRICE/SECOND FRANK TO FORWARD THIS PROPOSAL TO CITY
COUNCIL UNDER THE COVER OF THE STAFF MEMO THAT FRAZIER WILL
PROVIDE AND ADDING TO IT ANY DATA THAT CAN BE FOUND
REGARDING ORIGINAL DECISION. MOTION CARRIED 5-0 (7:56 AM
Sparks discussed oversized house issues. Jordan indicated it would be their next
work topic item.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION FRANK/SECOND PRICE TO ADJOURN DECEMBER 20, 2007
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 8:01 PM. MOTION CARRIED 5-0
The Planning Commission meeting of December 20, 2007, adjourned at 8:01 pm.
The next Planning Commission meeting will be held on Tuesday, January 22, 2008.
Minutes taken by:
Pam Greytak
Administrative Assistant
Planning Commission Minutes December 20, 2007
Page 2
What's The Difference?
Audit Committee vs. Finance Committee
AUDIT COMMITTEE
The audit committee is
authorized to consider matters
related to (a) the financial
statements of the organization
and other official financial
information provided to the
public;
(b) the systems of internal
controls, including overseeing
compliance by management
with applicable policies and
procedures and risk management
(e.g., for organizations that are
part of a national network,
annually reviewing whether the
organization meets the re-
chartering requirements of its
national organization);
and (c) the annual independent
audit process, including the
recommended engagement of
and receiving of all reports from
the independent certified public
accountants. The audit
committee shall have such other
authority and perform such other
duties as may be delegated to it
by the board.
RESPONSIBILITIES
The finance committee ensures
that budgets and financial
statements are prepared; the
audit committee has oversight
for ensuring that reports are
received, monitored, and
disseminated appropriately.
The finance committee monitors
financial transactions; the audit
committee makes sure things are
done according to policy and
with adequate controls.
The finance committee provides
guidance about what can be
done; the audit committee
ensures that independent
oversight occurs.
FINANCE COMMITTEE
The finance committee shall
oversee the preparation of the
annual budget and financial
statements.
The finance committee shall
oversee the administration,
collection, and disbursement of
the financial resources of the
organization.
The finance committee shall
advise the board with respect to
making significant financial
decisions.
Source: Nonprofit Risk Management Center Website
For more information on any risk management topic, contact the
Nonprofit Risk Management Center at www.nogprofitrisk.org or (202) 785-3891.
City Hall Facilities Strategy list w- Drew's comments
Although I missed the contextual nature of the strategy session last week which puts me at
somewhat of a disadvantage, 1 can � address the written word as I see it.
Goal: To have adequate, cost effective and efficient facilities and services for the City's needs
Measurable strategy:
1. Facilities located on property owned by the City of Medina are preferred over leased facilities
2. Facilities should be located within the City Limits
3. Acquisition of new property for the facilities is preferred over the consumption or use of existing
park land
i �Y d park., a e i edF the acrli an a- 60,00il> plant de re
r sae r .uses beFeated fib. offset the cgrisurn;ptidru of .such i
• This requirement seems onerous. It really does not matter if the City Hall were
expanded in its present location or put in Medina Park, this appears that more
park space would have to be procured if I under this correctly. This would be a
very difficult task in a mature community like Medina. To me this requirement
acts a disincentive to use current city property. Basically, it forces the city to
buy more land in a very expensive area. Recommend deletion of Item #4.
5. Minimizing the impact to the area surrounding the facilities is required
6. Maintaining the co -location of City Hall and Police functions in the same facility is a priority to
maintain operating efficiencies
7. A geographically central location is preferred but not required
8. Minimize barriers to public access of facilities where possible
9. Develop efficient facilities to meet needs of citizens and staff for the foreseeable future
10. Provide adequate facilities to continue the use of consultants that supplement existing full time
staff requirements
11. Develop a facility with adequate life safety and security systems
12. Minimize short and long term operating costs
13. Facilities should be environmentally sustainable when possible to meet operating cost goals
14. Develop a facility that is flexible and adoptable for the implementation of cost effective
technological improvements
15. Preservation of the existing ferry terminal building is required regardless of eventual use
16. Any facilities plan that does not include the use of the current ferry terminal building must be
accompanied by a plan of what to do with the long term use of the ferry terminal building
17. Including council chambers in the City Hall facility is preferred
18. Prefer funding with existing revenues and avoiding any long term fiscal impact to the City
Page 1 of 1
Michael Caldwell
From: Jim Lawrence giml@saltchuk.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 3:07 PM
To: Michael Caldwell
Cc: Nelso 1
Subject: RE: May 28 Meeting Goals and Measurable Strategy List
Mike -
I don't necessarily agree we reached your consensus on 3 or 4, and I would change them a
little.
On 3, 1 don't agree that we agreed that the acquisition of new property is preferred over use
of existing park land. I thought while we don't like to use park land, it would be a trade off
between which of the two (park or new) we would do and that we would look at alternatives.
On 4, again I don't think we want it worded that strongly. We agreed that we would try to come
up with an idea on how to develop new park space if we consumed old park space, but I don't
think that means we need to have an "acceptable" plan to offset that consumption, only that
we would try to come up with something. I don't want to rule anything out at this stage and
with wording like that I'm concerned citizens will scream that we are backing out on our "word".
Also, were you able to come up with anything on the land ("Durbin" property, I think) that was
purchased 10 years ago just east of the City hall and that one of the uses contemplated might
have been for a City hall expansion.
Jim
From: Michael Caldwell [mailto:mcaldwell@medina-wa.gov]
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 4:36 PM
To: Bob Rudolph; Bret Jordan; Drew Blazey; Jim Lawrence; Lucius Biglow; Mark Nelson; Shawn Whitney
Subject: May 28 Meeting Goals and Measurable Strategy List
City Council,
I have attached for your review and comment the Goal and Measurable Strategies developed by the Council at
the May 28th meeting. If the list is satisfactory I will develop a matrix for rating three test cases; two test cases
using existing City property and one using a purchased site.
Note: Please respond only to my e-mail address, if responses are sent to other council members it would
probably be a violation of the open meeting statutes.
Thanks, Mike Caldwell
6/5/2008
0 0
o w
0 0
0 )
�n m
0 0
I� N
o n
I� N
O O
O C'
W N
O O
o Ln
Lr Lr
00 N
..
-,
..
O 0
O O
O i�
al N
c� W
O p
®
0 ci 41
p
O �
4--
rci
_
� Q
fL �-{ u
._ -. .. .. -
O N
-
H C: fQ
k
w
o t N
o
f
-1 0
O
m/
U 1 O
l
O
®
o
g.
o O
O
p O
rN
rl
®
0 O
qq
lM
O N
cYl �j
CL
O
c^ m
o
CL
O
o ,n
m
-
- — —
— - -. — - —
n
O N
0LD
� m
O
O
1-4 m
a-7
O
� W
o
O p
O p
t0 d:
rl
N -a-
m
O
C O
O
N R
N N
O C O O O
U
CY
m
fn N fV --I ri
_j
agaJanO:) 101 pamopd