2014_03_05_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, March 5, 2014 Page 25 Mr. Paschke recognized that the Variance process was an option; however, he opined 1236 that the bar had already been placed high and questioned whether or not true 1237 consistency was available using that Variance option. 1238 Member Boguszewski advised that he was not trying to be arbitrary, but understanding 1239 the distinctions of single- and multi-family structures, he didn’t know what the actual 1240 footage should be, but to him it seemed that it needed to be higher. If the upper end was 1241 45’ and the preference was for a lower number, Member Boguszewski stated that he 1242 wanted to hear from staff what numbers would work. 1243 Member Cunningham advised that she agreed with 99% of what Member Boguszewski 1244 was attempting to accomplish; and while wanting to vote in support of the friendly 1245 amendment, without more information, she was not inclined to approve something 1246 without the benefit of that additional impact and potential impact. 1247 Mr. Paschke clarified that staff was not proposing any amendment to the things the 1248 Commission is currently proposing be changed, with no proposal to change the setbacks 1249 currently under discussion by the body. Mr. Paschke noted that the recommended 1250 change, other than increasing the multi-family setbacks as indicated on the Table, was 1251 only as noted in the staff report. Mr. Paschke noted that the body was trumping what was 1252 currently in code and staff believed to be inappropriate, and serving to set the bar too 1253 much higher than necessary. 1254 Member Cunningham questioned if the intent in fixing the current structure with the 1255 proposed text amendment from staff was to provide a buffer between new urban 1256 neighborhoods and older, existing neighborhoods. 1257 Mr. Paschke responded that staff was not seeking a text amendment for what the body 1258 was trying to change; and clarified that staff had not proposed that as part of their text 1259 amendment, as detailed in the staff report. 1260 Member Boguszewski clarified that it did however, apply to MDR, and the attributes of 1261 this inward-facing pocket development that made this a special case of that category that 1262 warranted looking into. While not knowing what MDR was originally put into place, 1263 Member Boguszewski guessed that it was an entirely different model than the GMHC 1264 proposal, a unique situation with the rear side outward facing, and increased traffic and 1265 garages all outward facing, with much of what was being discussed a result of that 1266 unique nature; and to him it was not incongruous or a concern just for this development. 1267 Mr. Paschke responded that this type of project was what the code contemplated in 2010. 1268 Member Boguszewski responded that he should then just let it stand. 1269 Mr. Paschke responded negatively, noting that in 2010 such a courtyard development 1270 was considered; and clarified that he was not disputing the fact that there may be some 1271 impacts. 1272 Member Daire questioned if the four footnotes shown under Table 1004-5 were currently 1273 in code or not; with Mr. Paschke advising that they do not currently exist. 1274 Member Murphy asked the maker and seconder of the motion if they were willing to 1275 accept 30’ for the periphery minimum rear yard building setback and 10’ minimum 1276 periphery alley setback. 1277 Member Boguszewski responded that he would accept that, that it would help and he 1278 really did not want the GMHC project to be stalled; however, he needed to consider that 1279 this was only one adjacent property to be impacted with that project, but there may be 1280 many more with future developments from the perspective of existing property owners 1281 versus those liking a more urban development. 1282 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT 1283 Member Boguszewski moved, seconded by Member Daire to amend the motion to 1284 increase the last line of Table 1004-5 for minimum periphery alley setbacks for one- 1285