2011-06-15_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Special Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, June 15, 2011 Page 4 Mr. Lamb noted that a recurring theme from property owners through the public meeting 152 process was to avoid zoning for vision as opposed to the preferred zoning for the market; 153 and initial concerns expressed by those developers on restrictions of the proposed 154 Regulating Map. Mr. Lamb advised that, based on those recurring comments and 155 concerns, attempts were made to address both the City’s vision and market realities of 156 the property owner/developer. Mr. Lamb noted that the market had a certain time frame 157 and cycled, but the vision was more long-term; but both concerns were appropriate. In 158 the case of Twin Lakes, Mr. Lamb noted that the AUAR provided the overall and ultimate 159 threshold for development and if attempts were made to be any more specific with 160 building frontages, those attempts would bump into those thresholds. While unable to 161 spread development throughout the entire acreage, Mr. Lamb advised that the focus was 162 on those most important public realm pieces and making them more visible through 163 identifiable corners, while attempting to facilitate more flexibility. 164 Member Boguszewski expressed concern about the potential “hodgepodge” nature of 165 various frontage designations within each block. 166 Mr. Lamb advised that the attempt was to respond to concerns of developers and 167 landowners. 168 A brief discussion ensued identifying and defining the AUAR and worst case scenario 169 thresholds for the benefit of new Commissioners unfamiliar with previous development 170 and City Council and Environmental Quality Board (EQB) approval of the AUAR; and its 171 correlation with the Zoning Code and the Regulating Map and Plan. 172 Member Wozniak expressed his surprise to see flexible frontage as a designated use; 173 however, in this case, he opined that it seemed appropriate, but in some of the features 174 (e.g. parking within 5’) it seemed to move away from the purposes of urban design 175 principles previously applied to the Twin Lakes area. Member Wozniak asked Mr. Lamb 176 and/or Mr. Paschke to address about this result and whether it was strictly an attempt to 177 address some market concerns. Member Wozniak asked for more detail about the 178 consideration given to those design principles and how they entered into the overall 179 thought process. 180 Mr. Paschke, from a staff perspective, noted that it would be unrealistic to implement 181 100% of urban design principals to their fullest extent on every parcel, since the types of 182 buildings and allowed uses would vary, and a way needed to be provided to build some 183 flexibility into the Plan, allowing development to occur and not be too prescriptive like the 184 previous iteration of the Plan when initiated. Mr. Paschke noted that, since every building 185 had four sides, as long as the frontage and applicable sides were addressed, flexibility 186 was needed for articulation of the non-visible areas of the building (e.g. dock doors for 187 deliveries) to accommodate various uses, while retaining attractive frontages, whether 188 right up to the frontages, or located elsewhere on a site in some instances. Mr. Paschke 189 noted that each block or development area may hold a mix of uses and parking 190 alignments or needs, but could still comply with urban design standards, with some 191 realistic modification and flexibility. Mr. Paschke noted that there was still lots of internal 192 discussion occurring, with additional tweaks after this draft being presented, and would 193 always remain a dynamic document, but allowing for this initial approval to facilitate 194 developers awaiting its creation and holding up their proposed developments for that to 195 be accomplished now. Mr. Paschke opined that it was staff’s opinion that the current 196 draft, with a few minor revisions yet in process, made the most sense as it relates to the 197 public realm and the connectivity hoping to be achieved. Mr. Paschke noted that 198 consideration would need to be incorporated into proposed developments for those 199 pedestrian connections or trails related to infrastructure improvements or those already in 200 place; as well as things yet to be enhanced or reinforced in those areas. 201 Mr. Lamb opined that the entirety of the Twin Lakes Urban Design Principles was quite 202 comprehensive, and to some extent, very detailed for actual application if applied evenly 203 and in its most intense form, it may be difficult to accommodate that level of development 204 pattern today compared with when it was first developed. However, at the same time, the 205