2011-06-15_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Special Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, June 15, 2011 Page 5 original Plan previously presented to the Commission had more lineal frontage 206 requirement and more variables about how much of the building would sit on those 207 frontages. Now, Mr. Lamb noted, attempts were being made to be more overt and 208 encourage buildings to build on the applicable “build-to” area for the best result, while 209 recognizing the need for some flexibility. 210 Member Wozniak sought clarification that the flexible frontage as proposed included 211 elements to reinforce the desire for creation of pedestrian-friendly avenues and 212 environments by offering vertical screening for parking lots if they were up to the 5’ 213 setback. Member Wozniak opined that, in effect, this allowed flexibility but did not 214 abandon the desirable attributes of urban design for Complete Streets and connectivity. 215 Mr. Paschke concurred with Member Wozniak’s opinion for urban frontage to be flexibility 216 as well as mechanics built into it to hide or screen parking. Mr. Paschke noted that this 217 allowed the vision for Twin Lakes, while also allowing buildings in some areas to move 218 forward, but needing to comply with screening and landscaping and regulations on how 219 to meet those requirements if you chose to move the building forward. Mr. Paschke 220 confirmed that it allowed for better flexibility but still addressed aesthetic appeal through 221 urban design principles. 222 Mr. Lamb noted, in particular, the attempt was to remain focused on where the private 223 parcel and the public realm intersected, and what that actual condition might be as 224 opposed to letting any solution occur, but to provide a uniform standard for that 225 intersection and relationship to define the physical edge. 226 Member Wozniak questioned if the recommended 36” screen was sufficient for parking. 227 Mr. Lamb advised that the recommendation was for 36” to 40”; and Mr. Paschke advised 228 that the current recommendation was for 36” minimum, but that the height requirement 229 recommendation could be revised. 230 Member Wozniak addressed the trend for vehicle height designs that were not getting 231 smaller on average. 232 Mr. Paschke questioned if the proposed minimum height requirement would screen the 233 full vehicle, but it would block it to a certain extent, and could require a masonry wall in 234 some situations. Mr. Paschke noted that the Plan narrative information spoke to that 235 possibility; however, he didn’t think a wall was advisable everywhere, and was unsure 236 where they would look good or be most applicable without taking away from desirable 237 frontage amenities. Mr. Paschke advised that discussions internally were still occurring 238 and being considered; whether a wall or vertical screen with options were best, or 239 whether to work with a developer for mixed landscaping or fencing. 240 Member Strohmeier sought additional information on the process to-date for public 241 awareness of the proposed Regulating Map and Plan; and if and how mailed notices 242 were provided beyond published notice. Member Strohmeier advised that he was most 243 concerned with those residential properties in the immediate area adjacent to Twin 244 Lakes; noting the fragile nature and past controversies. 245 Mr. Paschke advised that staff provided 730 mailed notices for the open house, via a 246 letter inviting property owners to the open house held on May 25, 2011, and mentioning 247 tonight’s Public Hearing. However, Mr. Paschke advised that duplicate notices had not 248 been sent, but that the Public Hearing had been noticed in accordance with State Statute 249 and the standard City Council Policy and process for land use notifications; and was also 250 available to the public on the City’s website. 251 Member Strohmeier asked if there had been any additional public outreach on the actual 252 Regulating Map and Plan sent out at the same time as the packet was received by 253 Commissioners. 254 Mr. Paschke responded negatively, noting that it was not typically part of the process; 255 however, he noted the multitude of ways for the public to contact staff and the mass e- 256