2013_06_05_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, June 5, 2013 Page 10 whether the previous definition would have allowed aluminum siding for a new funeral 451 home; however, opined that hairs were being split again. Mr. Paschke further opined that 452 in his opinion, it was better to provide for better direction and greater clarification for the 453 intent of the previous ordinance language by eliminating those things not found desirable, 454 while allowing flexibility for staff to work with them for similar products and new materials. 455 If the Commission remained uncomfortable with the proposed language, Mr. Paschke 456 noted that there was no rush to move this forward, and suggested more review and 457 tweaking by staff. Mr. Paschke opined that he was quite confident that residential type lap 458 siding was not desired in a Regional Business District, where the potential would them be 459 for it to be wrapped all the way around a strip mall, as an example. Mr. Paschke 460 expressed his preference for other design components closer to a street, but noted that 461 there were many nuances in code, and he was not sure how best to cross that bridge. 462 Mr. Paschke advised that he understood the concerns expressed by Member 463 Cunningham. However, unless restricting it to a specific District, such as the 464 Neighborhood Business section where materials could be slightly different and may allow 465 for a commercial grade metal siding, Mr. Paschke advised that staff could reconsider 466 that; however, he could not advocate for it in other Districts. 467 Member Daire opined that, from his perspective, staff’s choice of words was close to 468 genius, by including “may be” as that indicated that some things may be permitted or 469 encouraged, while allowing for flexibility. 470 Mr. Paschke concurred with staff’s intent with that wording, noting that they had 471 attempted a potentially broad selection of materials. 472 Member Cunningham advised that her concern was less with the 10% portion of Section 473 5.3 as in excluding the core materials on the main portion of a building. However, if she 474 was assured that staff would take into consideration commercial uses and potentially 475 using metal siding in Neighborhood Business Districts when they were attempting to 476 blend into the neighborhood, she could support the request without further revision. 477 Member Olsen opined that staff is not often given the credit they deserve, and concurred 478 with Member Daire’s interpretation of staff’s genius in this language. 479 Mr. Paschke recognized and duly noted that points raised; and noted that practical 480 application would prove whether or not those concerns and points had been sufficiently 481 addressed with this language. Mr. Paschke opined that there was something to be said 482 for making language too rigid or contradicting other language. Mr. Paschke advised that 483 staff would give further consideration to separating out Neighborhood Business Districts 484 due to their closer proximity to residential areas and the desire for achieving that blend. 485 Mr. Paschke reiterated that there was no urgency in proceeding, and if the Commission 486 preferred that it be further refined and brought back, he was amenable to doing so. 487 Member Boguszewski questioned if there was anything in code to address the intent of 488 this, since the intent seemed to be to avoid or prevent incongruity along a neighborhood 489 or street and the character of other buildings. 490 Mr. Paschke stated that he was not sure if the Purpose Statement was that specific for 491 material and design standard and was broader; however, he noted that the purpose of 492 design standards was to achieve those goals within various Zoning Districts. 493 Member Boguszewski opined that he could envision a restaurant or funeral home looking 494 out of place if it looked like a residents; and questioned if it may be helpful to add a line 495 about the intent of standards for these applications as well. 496 Chair Gisselquist closed the Public Hearing at 8:24 p.m.; no one spoke for or against. 497