Laserfiche WebLink
Regular City Cownci� Meeting <br />DRAFT Minutes of Monday, June 18, 2007 <br />Page 18 <br />1 Councilmember Pust questioned the application for zoning from R-1 <br />2 to B-6, and whether this was a requirement to allow multi-family <br />3 housing. <br />4 <br />5 Mr. Stark advised that the recommendation was for a Planned Unit <br />6 Development {PUD) with underlying B-6 zoning, as designated in <br />7 both the Twin Lakes Master Plan and Comprehensive Plan; and <br />8 opined that B-6 zoning seemed the most practical and least controver- <br />9 sial. <br />10 <br />11 City Planner Thomas Paschke concurred, noting that the Twin Lakes <br />12 Redevelopment Area had some specificity regarding the properties <br />13 within that given boundary. <br />�4 <br />15 Councilmember Pust noted that Planning Commission's vote to deny <br />16 the project, based on their one finding, and questioned if staff could <br />17 add to iheir rationale from Planning Commission meeting discussions. <br />I8 <br />19 Mr. Stark advised that staff could not elaborate; and opined they ap- <br />20 peared to be troubled by the possibility of shadows impacting single- <br />21 family propertiies. <br />22 <br />23 Caunc�lmember Pusi questioned if other d'zscussions or decisions on <br />24 land use issues had included shadow impacts. <br />25 <br />26 Mr. Paschke advised that, whi�e not specifically, proximity to residen- <br />27 tial or business properties was considered. Mr. Paschke opined that <br />28 the Planning Commissioners general concerns were for a 4-story <br />29 building in addition to the parking garage and roof, creating too much <br />30 height and massing for this property. Mr. Paschke advi sed that the <br />31 Comm�ssion didn't appear to be opposed to the multi-family housing <br />32 but were unable to support this design. <br />33 <br />34 Mr. Stark noted that there had been some opinions shared by <br />35 neighbors and Planning Commissioners for the preference in the twin <br />35 homes allowing a softer transition; however, with staff recommending <br />37 the developer provide the park access road, twin homes were not pos- <br />38 sible. Mr. Stark opined that the developer preferred the town home <br />39 development; and further noted that neither the mass nor height o� the <br />