2013_06_05_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, June 5, 2013 Page 4 service bays, creating another concern that buildings in this general area and those 146 potential businesses in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area with similar situations 147 should also be addressed and clarified. Mr. Paschke noted that garage doors in 148 residential applications were subject to finer detail in Office/Business Park and/or 149 Industrial areas. 150 Member Boguszewski questioned if it would make sense to combine this, and the 151 previous action just taken, at least as it related to “not facing streets.” 152 Mr. Paschke responded that this request was specific to Office/Business Park or 153 Industrial Zones, while others were applicable to Business and Commercial Districts. Mr. 154 Paschke noted staff discussion about combining the two; however, could immediately 155 recall the rationale for separating the two issues, other than that the Industrial Zoning 156 area had more of this type of door and use adjacent to public streets; and the residential 157 section had only been inserted if a garage was part of the intended use; and noted that 158 there were only a few situations to which that could apply for Office or Commercial 159 Districts. Mr. Paschke offered to again review combining the two to determine if that 160 made sense. 161 After Mr. Paschke comments, Member Boguszewski advised that he would defer to staff, 162 noting that the previous request was more of a general purpose to allow greater flexibility 163 for the Planning Division to work out more feasible options, while this one seemed to be 164 more granular and clarifying, and was not seeking to increase flexibility, but delineating it 165 with higher standards and that staff’s separation of the two items seemed intentionally 166 recommended. Unless staff preferred to defer the matter, Member Boguszewski spoke in 167 support of moving it ahead at this time. 168 Mr. Paschke advised that, if the Commission was ready to support this request, he could 169 review both of the requests again before moving to the City Council in the process to 170 determine if there was a need to unify them, and if proven, could bring both requests 171 back to the Planning Commission for their reconsideration rather than proceeding to the 172 City Council level. Mr. Paschke noted that this would simply require staff to post a new 173 hearing and tweak the requests based on that further review, and it appeared to make 174 sense as a stand-alone or combined request. 175 Chair Gisselquist sought clarification of definitions for vertical and horizontal overhead 176 doors; with Mr. Paschke clarifying the intent for doors, even if opening horizontally, still 177 designed as a loading dock or service door. 178 In Section 5.3, Member Stellmach sought clarification, provided by Mr. Paschke, related 179 to overhead doors traditionally used as a loading dock or service door, and not typically 180 left open due to security purposes; and still not allowed in the front of a building. 181 Chair Gisselquist closed the Public Hearing at 7:16 p.m.; no one spoke for or against. 182 Member Boguszewski noted that he was ready to move the request forward, based on 183 Mr. Paschke’s comments; unless staff determined to amend the items and return them at 184 a later date. 185 MOTION 186 Member Boguszewski moved, seconded by Member Cunningham to recommend to 187 the City Council APPROVAL of the proposed ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS to 188 Sections 1005.02I and 1006.02D specific to Garage Doors and Loading Docks 189 requirements and creation of a new definition in Section 1001.10 of the Zoning 190 Ordinance for overhead doors; based on the comments and findings of Sections 4- 191 6 and the recommendation of Section 7 of the staff report dated June 5, 2013. 192 Ayes: 5 193 Nays: 0 194 Motion carried. 195 Anticipated City Council action is scheduled at their June 17, 2013 meeting. 196