Laserfiche WebLink
Regular Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, September 7, 2011 <br />Page 12 <br />family sustaining waged jobs; and limiting overwhelming retail uses. Mr. Trudgeon <br />543 <br />advised that it was staff’s intent to retain that specific goal statement in the ordinance and <br />544 <br />live within the original spirit of the Twin Lakes Master Plan. However, Mr. Trudgeon <br />545 <br />explained that the problem with the Master Plan was in the many different ways it could <br />546 <br />be interpreted and the need for a realistic application in today’s development world. Mr. <br />547 <br />Trudgeon advised that it was the intent of the language to provide encouragement and <br />548 <br />incentives for developers to work cooperatively with the City to consistently achieve those <br />549 <br />goals as identified. <br />550 <br />Chair Boerigter questioned the rationale, as it related to the City’s new Zoning Code in <br />551 <br />not regulating uses, but regulating function and form for buildings; and how that related to <br />552 <br />sustainable jobs. <br />553 <br />Community Development Director Trudgeon responded that this document was <br />554 <br />attempting to integrate the mitigation efforts of the AUAR that was open to interpretation <br />555 <br />on enforcement, while incorporating and reiterating that language, without going into too <br />556 <br />much detail. Mr. Trudgeon requested that Chair Boerigter further explain his connection <br />557 <br />with the Regulating Map. <br />558 <br />Chair Boerigter opined that the Regulating Map and those uses allowed, along with other <br />559 <br />City Code; and questioned how that related to the aspirations in the original Business <br />560 <br />Park Master Plan. <br />561 <br />Mr. Trudgeon responded that, in some respects the two were similar, while subject to <br />562 <br />interpretation. Mr. Trudgeon noted that the Regulating Plan didn’t talk about uses or <br />563 <br />family sustainable jobs; however, it did talk about street presence and walkabilty. Mr. <br />564 <br />Trudgeon recognized that it was unfortunate that the provisions were not all incorporated <br />565 <br />into one document; however, he o pined that this was not the appropriate tool for all goals <br />566 <br />to be identified. <br />567 <br />City Planner Paschke noted that the Twin Lakes Master Plan was not a specific use plan, <br />568 <br />but provided for general uses; and opined that a byproduct of the Twin Lakes Master <br />569 <br />Plan was the Urban Design Principles that were updated in approximately 2007 and <br />570 <br />adopted by the City Council, thus becoming the guideline for development in the Twin <br />571 <br />Lakes Redevelopment Area. Since then, Mr. Paschke advised that the Regulating Plan <br />572 <br />had been predicated off both of those documents, with its original goals, concepts, <br />573 <br />objectives, and criteria carried forward into one standard document, including attempting <br />574 <br />to incorporate AUAR standards related to zoning and land use, while achieving additional <br />575 <br />separation to be consistent with the AUAR. <br />576 <br />Member Boguszewski opined that the Master Plan was aspirational and contained long- <br />577 <br />term goals; while this ordinance attempted to elevate the force of the Master Plan to an <br />578 <br />ordinance level by inference. Member Boguszewski questioned if the language belonged <br />579 <br />in the ordinance at all, or whether it should be softened to state “as appropriate” or <br />580 <br />included in concordance with the AUAR so as not mandated, but remaining as a guiding <br />581 <br />document (Line 344, paragraph E). Member Boguszewski suggested that the language <br />582 <br />either be eliminated or softened to identify the aspirations, but not mandate that certain <br />583 <br />criteria “shall” be carried out. <br />584 <br />Mr. Trudgeon concurred that this was a fair point; and clarified that it was not the intent to <br />585 <br />further confuse the issue by mandating anything; and suggested that the language could <br />586 <br />be softened further to avoid such an implication. <br />587 <br />While not being familiar with the 2001 Business Park Master Plan, Member Boguszewski <br />588 <br />opined that such softening of the language would avoid any conflict with the Regulating <br />589 <br />Map. <br />590 <br />Member Wozniak concurred with the recommendation of Member Boguszewski; and <br />591 <br />noted that this would also address previous comments from developers about not putting <br />592 <br />additional hoops in the way of their development proposals. Member Wozniak stated that <br />593 <br /> <br />