CC_Minutes_2014_0407 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,April 7,2014 Page 18 preservation would address those issues; and his recollection of previous discus- sions with the City Council had been based on regulatory requirements. Mr. Paschke further opined that as uses moved further away from a park, whether by feet or by blocks, they would have less of an impact on parks, in this case specifi- cally Langton Lake Park and Oasis Park. Mr. Trudgeon agreed, opining that adjacency is self-evident with the exception of one property in Twin Lakes known as the "PIK" properties, with seven different legal parcels included in that development area and the need to account for that potential development and impact on adjacent parcels. Mr. Trudgeon opined that the definition of"adjacency" itself was one criteria, with the demarcation of the road a good separation, and a certain distance from the park as long as not bisect- ed by a road; with the ultimate goal that land adjacent to a park should be treated differently than properties across the street. However, Mr. Trudgeon cautioned that the PIK property was one parcel that may have some unintended consequenc- es if not properly addressed by this provision. At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Trudgeon clarified that several filters would be put in place with these modifications: adjacency, a certain amount of feet unless bisected by a road, and other considerations as staff developed those standards. By consensus, the City Council agreed with this recommendation of staff. At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Paschke clarified standards for nighttime activities (page 8, lines 146-147) specific to loading off- or on-street within a certain proximity to residential districts; noting that these standards were currently included in the Regional Business District (RBD), but with Coun- cilmember Willmus seeking the rational for those regulations. Councilmember McGehee questioned home occupations as a permitted use in the CMU; with Mr. Paschke advising that there were standards and criteria in place as defined in zoning code that needed to be met in residential areas (e.g. in apart- ments). Councilmember McGehee further requested a 20' buffer versus a 10' buffer due to the watershed for the park and need to filter water through plantings or other options (page 7, lines 101 — 104, Item C); as well as determining whether a 6' or 8' path was necessary, opining that 8' was too large in some areas, and would pre- fer a variation between the two depending on where it is: a sidewalk versus a bike path connection. Councilmember McGehee questioned if, in more high density areas in a CMU District, were 8' wide concrete sidewalks preferable to 8' wide bituminous pathways.