2014_03_05_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, March 5, 2014 Page 17 Member Boguszewski opined that, even though there was a lot of volume, the 820 architectural detail mitigated and softened the feel of a sterile mass along Dale Street and 821 Lovell Avenue. 822 Mr. Paschke concurred, opining that they became more inviting. 823 Member Boguszewski asked if it was staff’s understanding that the depiction of the 824 elevation drawings was fairly representative of what the development will actually look 825 like, and how it applies to this specific zoning text change request. 826 Prefaced by noting that this text amendment would not be specific to this development, 827 but would be included as part of any future development in a MDR Zoning District, Mr. 828 Paschke advised that this was what staff was proposing in the text amendment request, 829 that those future developments could be at that same setback level as long as they 830 promoted all other requirements and nuances of the zoning ordinance and 831 comprehensive plan. Theoretically, Mr. Paschke advised that the intent with this 832 recommendation was that throughout the City this text amendment could translate into 833 that type of design. Under current zoning ordinance language, Mr. Paschke advised that 834 someone could propose a row home without a porch, and the City could not require such 835 an amenity or regulate how and where they were separated from the property line. 836 At the request of Member Murphy, Mr. Paschke restated the proposed setbacks, right up 837 to the property line, somewhere around 10’ behind the existing trail, with porches 838 proposed 4’ off the property line. Theoretically, Mr. Paschke reiterated that the zoning 839 ordinance language was not being changed for this project; and anyone wishing to build 840 a row home and put in this type of design could also be permitted to do so. Mr. Paschke 841 clarified those setback requirements and conclusions on page 2 of the staff report that 842 applied specifically to the Dale Street Project. 843 Chair Gisselquist confirmed, with staff concurring, that the zoning text amendment 844 recommendation is more generic, and the specific shown related to the Dale Street 845 Project showing actual setback applications and how they would impact neighboring 846 properties in this type of development were being used as an example. 847 At the request of Member Stellmach, Mr. Paschke clarified the front yard setback relative 848 to local streets (Lovell and/or Cope Avenues) with Dale Street and Lexington Avenue 849 more typical of where this type of urban housing or row home application would be 850 located. Therefore, Mr. Paschke advised that the text as it tied to the chart of uses would 851 need to be changed as well, and if along Cope and/or Lovell Avenues, the setbacks 852 would be greater. 853 At the request of Member Stellmach, Mr. Paschke reviewed street classifications and 854 their intended functions, as reviewed on Page 3, Section 4 of the staff report; and 855 addressing where it would be more appropriate to have a more urban edge to a 856 development. 857 In reviewing recommended text amendments for front yard setbacks for courtyards of the 858 row homes between Cope and Lovell Avenues, Mr. Paschke reviewed aspects of this 859 type of cluster housing or pocket neighborhoods designed around a common courtyard. 860 Mr. Paschke noted that the ring road would serve as a private alleyway, with homes 861 placed off that with the internal courtyard serving as the front of those homes. Under 862 current code requirements with setbacks required to be much greater, Mr. Paschke 863 advised that staff did not feel that was appropriate given that the most important element 864 was the width of the courtyard versus how far the front was setback off the courtyard. As 865 outlined on page 3, Mr. Paschke reviewed the aspects of private space needed, and 866 questioned if property lines would be that noticeable versus those for a single-family 867 development. Also, Mr. Paschke noted that typically in this type of urban housing 868 development, there was no need for a rear yard setback, with the proposal for a zero 869 setback, and garages fronting up to the alley. 870