2015-10-07_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes – Wednesday, September 2, 2015 Page 23 detailed in the staff report dated September 2, 2015.Mr. Lloyd noted this would include 1119 changes to the existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map (Attachment A) guiding 1120 future Community Mixed Use (CMU) land use designation that provided much broader 1121 language than guidance currently found in the High Density Residential (HDR) zoned 1122 designation.Mr. Lloyd advised that the Comprehensive Plan change would be a 1123 foundational elemental in amending current zoning code.Mr. Lloyd advised that this 1124 request currently before the Planning Commission was a result of months of public input 1125 and City Council review and discussion, and creation of the proposed zoning map 1126 (Attachment B) showing four use designations within the CMU zoning in the Twin Lakes 1127 Redevelopment Area. 1128 Mr. Lloyd directed the Commission’s attention to Table 1005-5 detailing uses in these 1129 four zoning districts (Attachment C). 1130 At the request of Member Murphyregarding the hash markings in the area bordering the 1131 lake, Mr. Lloyd noted that existing CMU regulations limited height to some extent, and 1132 this buffer area suggested even further height reductions to minimize massing along 1133 street frontages and along lake borders to improve pedestrian aesthetics.Mr. Lloyd noted 1134 that this would implement absolute height limitations for that area, with the proposed 1135 CMU-1 designation allowing a maximum height of 35’, and overall height limited to 65’ in 1136 CMU-2 designations; with the further provision for that 35’ height restriction within the 1137 “hashed” areas. 1138 Within the various CMU subareas, Mr. Lloyd noted that CMU-2 subareas provided less 1139 density to the north, thus buffering more intense development from sensitive areas (e.g. 1140 parks, natural areas, and wetlands) with the CMU-4 subarea the most intensive area.Mr. 1141 Lloyd clarified that these subareas in CMU designated zoning did not necessarily apply to 1142 the entire community, but was specific to the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area. 1143 In addition to the Commission focus tonight on the Table of Uses (Attachment C – pages 1144 16– 18),Mr. Lloyd noted the requested text changes (Attachment C, page 16) and 1145 revised definition of the first section of Zoning Code Chapter 1001, Introduction, Section 1146 1001.10: Definitions (Attachment C, Page 1). 1147 Mr. Lloyd briefly reviewed the intent of each ofthe four subareas in the CMU zoning 1148 designation as detailed in the staff report dated September 2, 2015, and further defined in 1149 Attachment C, and the proposed uses for each.Mr. Lloyd noted that this resulted in 1150 different land uses across those 4 subareas, providing for a unique situation with the 1151 regulating plan providing a different layer of zoning, specially addressing setback 1152 requirements, use regulations, and where 24-hour uses wereor were not acceptable 1153 given the subarea proximity to residential uses. 1154 Mr. Lloyd addressed an email provided to staff earlier today from Member Stellmach 1155 suggesting further simplifications that staff found valid, and with Mr. Lloyd’s responding e- 1156 mail to Commissioners, staff recommended they be included as a new section topage 16 1157 of Attachment C specifically addressing limited business hours district-wide versus 1158 basing them on use limitations.Mr. Lloyd further noted an observation by Member 1159 Stellmach of a potential conflict in regulating customers within permitted uses asa 1160 conditional use (CU) during nighttime while allowing hotels as permitted (P) use when 1161 their guests were arriving or departing at all hours.Mr. Lloyd opined that the simplest way 1162 to address it was to make lodging uses in the Land Use Table 1005-5 a CU in CMU-4 to 1163 avoid that conflict.If other conflicts or inconsistencies were found, Mr. Lloyd asked 1164 Commissioners to point them out for the next iteration. 1165 Mr. Lloyd noted in the Land Use Table for the Twin Lakes area, the laboratory/research 1166 and developmentuse was not expressly discussed as a permitted use in the table, but 1167 seemed to be a natural fit with other P uses promoted for corporate or biotechnical firms 1168 or offices of a similar nature in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area, making it a sensible 1169 addition to the proposed revised Table of Uses at least in the Industrial section to 1170 accommodate laboratories for research and development and/or testing.Mr. Lloyd 1171