2011_0822_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

208 with the Regulating Plan and realities of site development. Specifically, we do not 209 anticipate that the developments in Twin Lakes will have entrance orientation adjacent to 210 all street frontages, nor do we believe it is in the City's best interest to require such a 211 design because not all uses allowed in Twin Lakes are conducive to a public entry on 212 more than one side of the building. The proposed modification is as follows.- 213 Entrance Orientation: Where appropriate and applicable P-primary building 214 entrances shall be oriented to the primary abutting public street. Tlaleo, leonat+afiee mttst 215 RLt AV T A � e er- Additional entrances may be oriented to a secondary street or 216 parking area. Entrances shall be clearly visible and identifiable from the street and 217 delineated with elements such as roof overhangs, recessed entries, landscaping, or 218 similar design features. 219 2.4 The next Standard that should be slightly modified would be Garage Door and Loading 220 Docks. Here,, there would be a requirement of screen walls along the public street 221 frontages so as to frame the public realm much like a building might. It is a more 222 aesthetic way to screen the rear of these uses and buildings so that trucks, docks and 223 other devices such as compactors and refuse areas do not compromise the public's 224 interest and investment. The proposed modification is as follows.- 225 Garages Doors and Loading Docks: Loading docks, refuse, recyclables, and/or 226 compactors shall be located on rear or side facades and,, to the extent feasible,, garage 227 doors should be similarly located. Garage doors of attached garages on a building 228 front shall not exceed 50% of the total length of the building front. Where loading 229 docks, refuse, recyclables, and/or compactors abut a public street frontage, a 230 masonry screen wall comprised of materials similar to the building or as 231 approved by the Community Development Department, shall be installed to a 232 minimum height to screen all activities. 233 3.0 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 234 3.1 At the continuation of the public hearing on July 6, 2011, the Planning Commission 235 sought additional comments from citizen regarding the revised Twin Lakes Regulating 236 Plan proposal presented by Staff and the Consultant. Two citizens spoke regarding the 237 Plan; Ms. Amy Ihlan and Ms. Annett Phillips. Ms. Ihlan addressed the Commission 238 indicating a concern about the lack of public input into the process, environmental 239 impacts, buffering Langton Lake Park and surrounding neighborhoods, parking, green 24O space/open space, and Twin Lakes Parkway connection to Fairview Avenue (see 241 Attachment E and PC Draft Minutes). Ms. Phillips addressed the Commission 242 questioning why a urban plan was being proposed for this particular tract of land and 243 concerns about the Twin Lakes Parkway connection to Fairview Avenue (see PC Draft 244 Minutes). 245 3.2 Commissioners did have questions of the City Planner and Consultant (Michael Lamb), 246 regarding the citizens concerns and other items regarding the proposed plan. 247 3.3 The Planning Commission voted 4 -1 to recommend approval of the Twin Lakes 248 Regulating Plan and subsequent zoning ordinance changes as presented by staff and the 249 consultant on July 6, 2011. 250 4.0 SUGGESTED CITY COUNCIL ACTION PROM I 7—RCA—RegPlan-082211 (4).doc Page 6 of 7