PC 101007 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Blank recalled the meeting and the visuals and was intrigued by the visuals. He did not recall the outcome at that level of detail and suggested agendizing the item. Staff would be able to bring the Minutes forward and give the Commissioners some clarification. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Fox regarding whether noise was an issue, Mr. Frost confirmed that was part of the concerns brought forth in that discussion. He noted that the records of the sound measurements taken by Planning staff were available. Ms. Decker noted that there were six items of concern related to how sports courts impact neighbors for which the Commission provided direction to staff: noise, visual impacts, design, location, setbacks, colors and screening. She believed that Mr. Frost and staff were in agreement with respect to homeowners associations and outreach being performed. The Commission directed staff to identify which homeowners associations would be potentially impacted by sports courts regulations because not all homeowners associations or PUDs within the City would be impacted. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Blank regarding when that results might be available, Ms. Decker replied that staff hoped to have them available by December of 2007. She added that there had been considerable schedule impacts on the Planning Commission as well as parallel priorities. She noted that several very large projects were coming forward soon and that she anticipated staff could return with the results in the beginning of 2008. She believed it would come forward as a workshop item first because there are many parameters needed to be studied and addressed. She did not believe that it would be proper to grant Mr. Frost’s request to revoke Mr. Iserson’s interpretation of the Zoning Code. She noted that it was within his purview as the Planning Director to interpret the Code and make a decision based on that interpretation. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Blank regarding the process of public challenge to the Zoning Administrator’s interpretation of the Code, Ms. Harryman replied that it would come about through an appeal or application by a resident with respect to an existing situation. Commissioner O’Connor inquired how an appeal could be brought forth without an approval, as in this case. Commissioner Olson did not believe that Mr. Frost had reason to worry about the letter from Mr. Iserson and did not believe it would apply to a full-blown sports court. Ms. Decker noted that the Building and Codes do not require a permit for flatwork. She Planning noted that a sports court was essentially a poured concrete slab and that there is no requirement for a design review approval for flatwork, with some exceptions for PUD requirements or express statements to review new features. She noted that the Zoning Administrator’s opinion regarding whether a ten-foot high pole was an accessory structure is that it was not an accessory structure, which is defined as either Class I or Class II within the Code. Commissioner Blank moved to agendize an item to hold an in-depth discussion, possibly a public workshop, within the next two meetings. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, October 10, 2007 Page 5 of 21