2011-06-15_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Special Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, June 15, 2011 Page 3 Lakes Parkway (both portions of the roadway that are currently existing and those yet 101 proposed for completion). 102 Twin Lakes Urban Standards (DRAFT 06/10/11) 103 Pages 2 – 5 104 Mr. Lamb noted the various regulations identified in the Regulating Map, their specific 105 definitions and how development would be regulated in each, and differentiations in each: 106 Greenway Frontages, Urban Frontage, Flexible Frontage, and Dedicated Public 107 Corridors/Greenways. 108 Mr. Lamb’s presentation included identifying public realm connections with three entry 109 points into Langton Lake Park (refer Section 2.2 of the staff report), and the 300-400’ 110 diameter connections points that would require public dedication into the park with some 111 flexibility for those connections depending on how development proposals come forward. 112 Mr. Lamb reviewed various development examples of each identified building frontage 113 option and how they may look in conjunction with public connectors or amenities to define 114 spaces and overlooking and adjacent to pedestrian amenities. Further review included 115 parking setbacks, build-to areas, and how the flexible frontage building areas were similar 116 to past development looks, with buildings sited in the middle of the lot, but requiring 117 physical vertical screening and landscaping to define the property edge or boundary. 118 At this time, Mr. Lamb ended his formal presentation to hear comments and questions of 119 the Commission. 120 Discussion by Mr. Lamb, staff and Commissioners 121 Member Boguszewski referenced the Regulating Map (page 2), and clarified that the 122 recommendations presented for various frontage designations were based on his firm’s 123 judgment and input received at the public meeting. 124 Mr. Lamb concurred, noting that multiple meetings had been held to-date with staff, as 125 well as the feedback received from the public and landowners; and the ultimate attempt 126 to respond to those comments and concerns and focus more on the important items 127 (connections and improving amenities to Langton Lake Park), and the request of 128 landowners to be more flexible to facilitate development options, especially around the 129 perimeters of Cleveland Avenue, County Road C, and Fairview Avenue. Mr. Lamb 130 advised that, as development moves closer to the Lake, standards were recommended 131 for a more strict and specific application. Mr. Lamb noted those were defined as 132 greenway frontages to define public connections and hold the corners along the Parkway 133 and surrounding the parks. 134 Mr. Paschke advised that the attempt was to be more respectful and responsive to the 135 current document guiding development, entitled “Twin Lakes Urban Design Principals,” 136 developed under the previous Zoning Code. 137 Mr. Lamb noted that this is a different way to approach zoning, not focused on actual use, 138 but listing approved uses in the current Zoning Code. Mr. Lamb clarified that the 139 Regulating Map is not so concerned about the use, allowing for flexibility for future 140 development, but focusing on concerns for a more predictable development pattern that 141 has a realistic relationship to the public realm. 142 Member Boguszewski questioned if this would in effect regulate the building facades, 143 heights, setbacks and frontages – no matter what the development – but be based on in 144 which frontage designation a particular use was located. 145 Mr. Lamb responded affirmatively. 146 Member Boguszewski opined that it seemed like a higher percentage of linear frontages 147 were designed as flexible than originally anticipated, and how workable that would be, 148 and how development was envisioned if it was more restrictive of corners, but relaxed in 149 the middle, and whether that mitigated restrictions on the entire block (reference 150 Cleveland Avenue between Twin Lakes Parkway and Iona). 151