|
Regular Planning CommissionMeeting
<br />Minutes –Wednesday, June 4, 2014
<br />Page 21
<br />process, similar to an EAW which provides clear guidelines for them to follow but based
<br />1017
<br />on the specific project.
<br />1018
<br />Member Cunningham suggested capitalizing the “V” of “voluntary; with members
<br />1019
<br />concurring.
<br />1020
<br />As part of the same Section, letter C, Member Daire noted that it called for a 20’ wide
<br />1021
<br />buffer, with developments adjacent to the park potentially required to provide a 20’ wide
<br />1022
<br />pedestrian connection, and questioned if this was included in the initial 20’ or in addition
<br />1023
<br />to, making for a 40’ buffer.
<br />1024
<br />Mr. Paschke responded that, if you envisioned the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area and
<br />1025
<br />Langton Lake Park, realistically a 20’ wide buffer would occur from the single-family, low
<br />1026
<br />density residential area on thenorth side of Terrace Drive, with pedestrian connections
<br />1027
<br />running from park areas tout to the road in the existing network and wouldn’t’ necessarily
<br />1028
<br />double up on the buffer.Mr. Paschke noted that the buffer ran all around the lake from
<br />1029
<br />the residential area, with requirement for pathway connections, but may be different in
<br />1030
<br />other areas, with some possibly doubling up in some segments.
<br />1031
<br />At the request of Member Boguszewski as to what may trigger it, when language says
<br />1032
<br />“may be required,” Member Murphy responded that the property itself would determine
<br />1033
<br />that.Member Boguszewski further questioned if an 8’ wide pathway was always required
<br />1034
<br />or if it would be determined by staff as to the specific width needed.
<br />1035
<br />Mr. Paschke advised that, as it relates to pedestrian connections, staff believed that
<br />1036
<br />those connections were needed from the park to the existing street and/or existing
<br />1037
<br />pedestrian facilities, even though he could not specifically say where in that area, which
<br />1038
<br />would depend on the proposal itself.
<br />1039
<br />At the request of Member Boguszewski related to the same Section, letter D, Mr.
<br />1040
<br />Paschke confirmed that the intent in listing design for windows and doors was intended to
<br />1041
<br />created more visual appeal by texturing and variability in frontages and eliminate any
<br />1042
<br />perception of massing.
<br />1043
<br />Member Daire noted on page 11, Item D –Specific Standards and Criteria (for
<br />1044
<br />conditional use), under Proposed Procedures Amendments, under Item 37.b. that
<br />1045
<br />the maximum height on the last line should be “61’” rather than 51’,” to more
<br />1046
<br />accurately reflect the intent.
<br />1047
<br />Mr. Paschke concurred, noting that this was a typographical error, and should
<br />1048
<br />change to 61’.
<br />1049
<br />Chair Gisselquist, recognizing the considerable amount of time spent on these design
<br />1050
<br />standards by the consultant and previous Planning Commissions, questioned the
<br />1051
<br />purpose in revising the Twin Lakes District; whether it had been at the impetus of the City
<br />1052
<br />Council, or if a specific triggering event had brought them forward, or dissatisfaction with
<br />1053
<br />the current mix of tenants or a fear with the lack of development to-date.
<br />1054
<br />Mr. Paschke advised that it was broader than that, with pre-existing documents and
<br />1055
<br />ongoing discussions, thoughts and ideasnot old at all.Mr. Paschke note that, with the
<br />1056
<br />expiration of the AUAR, after having been updated twice, the City Council chose not to
<br />1057
<br />update it again, but pursue a different direction and reconsider what they wanted to see
<br />1058
<br />in the Twin Lakes RedevelopmentArea, under current market conditions and the lack of
<br />1059
<br />development over the years, and an examination of why it was so difficult to get projects
<br />1060
<br />interested in the area.Mr. Paschke advised that the review by the City Council suggested
<br />1061
<br />the need for more flexibility, with the City Council and staff focusing on specific issues,
<br />1062
<br />and whether or not a regulating plan was good or bad in achieving that development.Mr.
<br />1063
<br />Paschke advised that upon completion of the process, the intent was to keep consistency
<br />1064
<br />throughout the code, and since the Twin Lakes CMU District was the only one with a
<br />1065
<br />regulating plan, and from the standpoint of whether or not it worked, it was suggested
<br />1066
<br />that something new and different was needed than the current standard.Mr. Paschke
<br />1067
<br />advised thatstaff was supportive of eliminating it as long as heightened requirements
<br />1068
<br />
<br />
|