Loading...
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