2015-09-02_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, September 2, 2015 Page 24 suggested it may be prudent to think more intentionally about what research and 1172 development or testing could entail and how to regulate them to address outdoor 1173 elements and concerns (e.g. testing explosives as a non-permitted – NP – use while a 1174 more sensible use may be in testing driverless vehicles outdoors and whether or not to 1175 regulate that type of implementation). 1176 Regarding the requested zoning changes, Mr. Lloyd based on the proposed Table of 1177 Uses for Twin Lakes, some uses were clearly P and others NP, while others were open 1178 to interpretation, usually falling into the CU, and potentially falling into the Planned Unit 1179 Development (PUD) area if the City Council ultimately decides to reinvent that option in 1180 the near future and depending on specific for each case. With that PUD consideration 1181 slated to come forward in the next few months, Mr. Lloyd advised that further refinement 1182 could occur at that time. 1183 In conclusion, Mr. Lloyd noted that staff was seeking two separate motions of the 1184 Planning Commission tonight for subsequent recommendation to the City Council, as 1185 detailed in the staff report. 1186 Chair Boguszewski summarized staff’s requested actions: proposed changes to the 1187 concept of the CMU Zoning District itself given the general perception that the single 1188 category was too broad or general in nature, creating a desire to split it into 1189 subcategories allowing varying degrees of latitude or restriction; and the desire to change 1190 two parcels in this area from the current zoning designation of High Density Residential 1191 (HDR) to CMU-2 parcels; provided the Commission concurs with the conceptual zoning 1192 designations from CMU to CMU-1, 2, 3 or 4. 1193 Chair Boguszewski noted that it’s possible the City Council may not support the 1194 Commission’s recommendation and could still change those two parcels to CMU without 1195 subcategories; with Mr. Lloyd concurring with that potential, noting that changing the 1196 Comprehensive Plan opened up that possibility. 1197 If that was the case, Chair Boguszewski asked staff if they still would have wanted to split 1198 the CMU into 4 subcategories, with Mr. Lloyd responding that the preferred lower 1199 intensity development couldn’t be achieved with a uniform CMU zoning district, and a 1200 more geographic nuance of zoning regulations was actually driving the process, part of 1201 which would be changing the Comprehensive Plan to achieve that. 1202 From a process standpoint, Chair Boguszewski noted that it behooved the Commission 1203 to vote on the four CMU subareas first and subsequent to that determine the CMU-1 1204 zoning as applicable. 1205 At the request of Chair Boguszewski, Mr. Lloyd confirmed that CMU-1 and CMU-2 1206 designations were fairly similar other than for business hour designations depending on 1207 the specific land use, and proposed for only two specific categories where they differed. 1208 Chair Boguszewski further noted that in CMU-2 and CMU-3 designations, there were 1209 eight differences proposed, with lodging and large format retail uses being addressed. 1210 Chair Boguszewski opined that it seemed the greatest value wasn’t necessarily achieved 1211 in splitting this into 4 subareas, which he felt could have been 90% achieved by splitting 1212 the CMU into 2 districts and combining CMu-3 and CMU-4 into CMU-2, other than for 1213 addressing hours of operation. 1214 Mr. Lloyd clarified that CUM-1 and CMU-2 zoning designations had a further distinction in 1215 overall height limitations, recognized by Chair Boguszewski. 1216 Chair Boguszewski sought clarification and confirmation from staff that action to amend 1217 the Comprehensive Plan required a 5/7 majority vote, requiring unanimity from those 1218 members present tonight, which may create a problem in the quorum present. 1219 Chair Boguszewski noted the tremendous amount of work that has gone into this, and 1220 commended staff and Member Stellmach for their review and good recommendations to- 1221 date. Given the considerable amount of time to sufficiently and meaningful review the 1222 Table of Uses line by line, and the need to focus on exceptions and potential complexities 1223