2011-06-01_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, June 1, 2011 Page 9 403 Mr. Lloyd advised that he would confirm the wheelchair ramp language to ensure 404 consistency and application, normally covered under administrative deviations if not 405 accommodated under zoning code. Mr. Lloyd further confirmed that decks or stoops were 406 covered under a separate provision as well, and often allowed to encroach. 407 Staff recommended approval of the proposed zoning text amendments to City Code, 408 Chapters 1004 and 1006; based on the detailed comments of Sections 2 and 3 of the 409 Request for Planning Commission Action dated June 1, 2066; and in consideration of 410 public input received during tonight’s public hearing. 411 Chair Boerigter opined that the proposed text amendments appeared to be 412 straightforward. 413 At the request of Member Boguszewski, Mr. Lloyd opined that the Buffer Amendments 414 may be available for the Commission’s July meeting. Public Comment 415 416 Chair Boerigter closed the Public Hearing at 8:19 p.m.; with no one appearing for or 417 against. MOTION 418 Member Boerigter moved, seconded by Member Strohmeier to RECOMMEND 419 approval of the proposed zoning text amendments to City Code, Chapters 1004 420 and 1006; based on the detailed comments of Sections 2 and 3 of the Request for 421 Planning Commission Action dated June 1, 2066; and in consideration of public 422 input received during tonight’s public hearing; and specifically related to front 423 porches and covered entries in the LDR-1 District; parking setbacks in the I 424 District; and buffers between LDR-1 Districts and more intensive zoning districts. 425 Ayes: 6 426 Nays: 0 427 Motion carried. 428 6. Communications and Recognitions 429 b. From the Commission or Staff 430 431 At the request of Chair Boerigter, Mr. Lloyd provided a summary of recently held Twin 432 Lakes Regulating Map and Plan Open House held last week, noting that attendance by 433 the general public was small, with only five (5) people in attendance who were not 434 affiliated with potential developers of those properties, City Councilmembers, or Planning 435 Commissioners, and noted that those residents didn’t have strong opinions to voice about 436 the Plan or Map. 437 However, Mr. Lloyd opined that the exercise had proven useful for property owners to 438 share their concerns about the nature of regulations and their concerns that they may be 439 overly strict or present obstacles for development. Mr. Lloyd advised that this provided 440 the consultant and staff with an opportunity to reconsider the proposed requirements that 441 had started with a rather strict interpretation of the past vision for the Twin Lakes area 442 and guidance of the Comprehensive Plan on the type of development preferred. For 443 purposes of the open house, Mr. Lloyd advised that the bar had been set high on what 444 was being proposed with those regulations, but following discussions at the open house, 445 the regulations had been dialed back and now offered more flexibility than originally 446 contemplated, particularly on properties along the edges (e.g. Fairview and Cleveland 447 Avenues, and County Road C), and holding the line more on the public realm closer to 448 Langton Lake and Langton Park, with more structure built in the code for building 449 placement and their impact to streets and pathways. 450 Member Boguszewski noted that he had attended the open house, and concurred with 451 staff’s summary of the event. Member Boguszewski opined that his key take away in the 452 end was the discussion among property owners and consultants about the degree of 453 flexibility versus restriction that the regulating map would have on them and their ability to