Laserfiche WebLink
manner, providing a realistic picture of what applicants can expect <br /> planning wise and thinking ahead and planning for the infrastructure of the <br /> Town. Fenwick also suggested a routine check of the current ordinances <br /> looking for areas of improvement. The question was also asked if there <br /> were any issues the Commission was dealing with for which they did not <br /> feel they had adequate direction from the Council. Gottlieb cautioned <br /> against making changes in one area of the code without fully <br /> understanding the total ramifications of such a change. <br /> I. Goals for the Planning Commission: setbacks vs. heights, view <br /> protection, third story Cottrell <br /> Cottrell referred to this issue of third story facades and noted that while no <br /> one seemed to like this element he could find nothing in the code about it. <br /> Gottlieb noted that it was a result of the homes built on Saddle Mountain <br /> in the 70s and their appearance of three story structures. It was agreed that <br /> references to third story elements should be removed. <br /> J. Land Use Element Cottrell <br /> Cottrell asked how the Council was going to approach dealing with the <br /> survey results and the continued review of the land use element. Council <br /> stated that they would get the survey results first and then decide how they <br /> were going to address them. The Planning Director noted that a request <br /> for proposals was being prepared for a General Plan Consultant. <br /> K. Appeals Casey <br /> Casey stated her opinion that staff planning decisions should be appealed <br /> by Commissioners and not by Council. It was agreed that the fast track <br /> process would be checked regarding the appeal process. Gottlieb also <br /> raised the issue that she thought it unfair that an applicant would have to <br /> pay at the Commission level for a hearing but not at the Council level if <br /> they were able to get a Councilmember to appeal the decision. A <br /> discussion followed but it was basically agreed that a project should be <br /> appealed because one wanted clarification of a decision or had questions <br /> about it not to save an applicant the appeal fee. In addition an applicant <br /> would not have to pay if they were able to get two Planning <br /> Commissioners to appeal a decision. <br /> L. Issues that need to be addressed: setbacks, height limits, <br /> drainage plan,pathway material Casey <br /> • <br /> April 5, 2001 <br /> Special City Council Meeting <br /> 3 <br />