2016-12-07_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Draft Minutes – Wednesday, November 2, 2016 Page 16 Pm Attachment B, Mr. Lloyd pointed out the proposed standards for LDR 762 properties but further reduced and adjusted for properties within a Wetland 763 Management District. 764 Mr. Lloyd noted that since applicable setback lines are different for what ended up 765 built on a given property, all of which could be different, there was no real way to 766 capture how development and setback constraints could be affected and therefore 767 addressing how best to set impervious allowances; and also depending on how 768 dense a given development was to be. 769 Chair Boguszewski led a discussion on City Council direction to staff and request 770 for further review and deliberation by the Planning Commission based on the City 771 Council’s most recent discussions. Individual Commissioners addressed potential 772 impervious coverage percentages to accommodate reasonable terms of scale and 773 lot sizes. 774 Chair Boguszewski opined that he considered 50% coverage for LDR-2 enough 775 and found 60% less desirable. 776 Member Kimble questioned how, as communities and lifestyles change, how 777 these proposed changes applied with other communities and their best practices 778 for use as bench marks to determine if these percentages are appropriate. 779 Mr. Lloyd advised that staff had looked at several neighboring communities and 780 their impervious coverage limits for LDR-2, and had also specifically asked 781 questions at the time about raising maximum coverage. However, Mr. Lloyd 782 noted the difficulties in putting together a cohesive picture of those comparisons, 783 as lot sizes tended to be much smaller in other communities as well as how 784 existing construction is regulated. Mr. Lloyd noted that some did have impervious 785 coverage limits, some for the principle structure (e.g. home) but not other 786 impervious surface coverage restrictions, making it difficult to get an across-the- 787 board picture for the total amount of building allowed on a site and how it was 788 regulated. 789 Member Daire noted his sketches didn’t take into consideration turnarounds, now 790 that he understood they were considered improvements, even though sidewalks, 791 driveways and decks may or may not be. Therefore, Member Daire admitted he 792 was now beginning to understand the distinction between setbacks and actual 793 improvement area classification. 794 Mr. Lloyd noted that, even if the improvement area for a particular development or 795 lot size filled up the space in setback boundaries, it didn’t necessarily mean all of 796 those improvements would be located in a block in the middle of the property, but 797 could stretch out on another portion of the site. 798 Chair Boguszewski cited other examples, using Member Daire’s sketch, opining 799 his opinion had been swayed to now consider that 60% for LDR-2 may be enable 800 a reasonable development on a smaller LDR-2 designated site; with these 801 sketches guiding his revised opinion, since he was previously missing out on the 802 mathematical and/or geometric context. Chair Boguszewski thanked Member 803 Daire, as a past City of Minneapolis City Planner for adding this dimension to the 804 discussion, and asked staff to include a copy of Member Daire’s diagram as an 805 attachment moving forward to the City Council’s deliberation, attached hereto 806 and made a part hereof. 807 As stated, Chair Boguszewski revised his comfort level to 60%, but no higher; 808 unless it proved contrary to the spirit of overdevelopment and retention of green 809 space. 810 Member Gitzen agreed that 60% be the maximum, and even though he could 811 define no hard numbers for that rationale between 50% and 60%, all considered 812