2013_06_05_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, June 5, 2013 Page 16 Council APPROVAL of the proposed ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS to Section to 761 1004.05 One- and Two-Family Design Standards regarding regulation of forward- 762 facing garage doors, as presented in the staff report, Section 5.0, dated June 5, 763 2013. 764 Member Boguszewski questioned if the makers of the motion would consider an 765 amendment to their motion excluding the third bullet point (lines 91-92), recommending 766 approval of only the first two (lines 90-90). 767 With the request for clarification by Member Stellmach, Mr. Paschke confirmed that the 768 third bullet point could feasibly allow a home, if further back than 50’ be exempted from 769 design standards, and potentially have a garage door taking up to 100% of the façade. 770 Member Stellmach opined that he personally did not find that aesthetically pleasing. 771 Member Olsen and Chair Gisselquist stated that they would entertain an amendment to 772 the motion, striking the third bullet point in its entirety. 773 MOTION 774 Member Boguszewski moved, seconded by Member Cunningham, to strike the 775 staff recommendation (third bullet point – lines 91-92) to the staff report dated 776 June 5, 2013, in its entirety. 777 Ayes: 6 778 Nays: 0 779 Motion carried. 780 AMENDED MOTION 781 Member Olsen moved, seconded by Member Gisselquist to recommend to the City 782 Council APPROVAL of the proposed ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS #1 and 2 783 (adding architectural details to improve the appearance of rear and side walls; and 784 to Section using raised panels and other architectural detailing on garage doors) 785 to 1004.05 One- and Two-Family Design Standards regarding regulation of forward- 786 facing garage doors, as presented in the staff report, Section 5.0, dated June 5, 787 2013; and excluding language proposing that homes with an attached garage that 788 are set back 50’ or more from the front property line are not required to meet the 789 requirements of Section 1004.05A. 790 Member Boguszewski spoke in support of the motion; however, as a citizen, he 791 encouraged someone to return with proposed exception text, as suggested by Member 792 Daire that would provide an exception in cases where a certain percentage of homes 793 facing a block have “snout houses,” or some similar wording. 794 Chair Gisselquist spoke in support of further review and language revisions, opining that 795 the garage issue had yet to be settled; however, also speaking in support of the two 796 recommendations of staff that made the existing ordinance better and allowed for more 797 flexibility in those design standards. 798 Member Boguszewski concurred; opining that these two (2) provisions remain in place 799 even if the 5’ garage setback language was eventually struck. 800 Mr. Paschke advised that staff was in no rush to get something moving forward; and had 801 only provided this proposed update when asked by the Commission and City Council to 802 look at options, not necessarily to eliminate any design standards. Mr. Paschke opined 803 that Member Daire had thrown out a proposal worth looking into that may serve to bridge 804 concerns and issues. Mr. Paschke stated that this was intended to initiate discussions, 805 and that staff would be happy to consider any and all options the Commission chose to 806 throw out. Mr. Paschke clarified that staff felt strongly about having something in there, 807 but whether or not staff was supported in that or not, the final language needed majority 808 support of the Commission and City Council. Mr. Paschke noted that it was staff’s role to 809 enforce existing code; and with the obvious strong positions on either side, he suggested 810 that the Commission not take action at this time and allow staff a greater opportunity to 811