Laserfiche WebLink
41 Commissioners were encouraged to provide their individual input to staff to be compiled for the <br /> 42 City Council. <br /> 43 b) Zoning Code Rewrite City Planner to present the Residential Districts Drafts and <br /> 44 Cuningham Group to introduce the Business Districts outline. <br /> 45 City Planner Thomas Paschke provided reviewed the proposed Residential District Code and its <br /> 46 various components, requesting specific comments and direction on the content and details <br /> 47 contained in the proposed section, rather than wordsmithing. Mr. Paschke noted that Consultants <br /> 48 Suzanne Rhees and Michael Lamb were also present at tonight's meeting. <br /> 49 Mr. Paschke provided an update on the process to -date from staff's perspective; reviewed <br /> 50 feedback from the recently -held public open house, with seven (7) residents attending throughout <br /> 51 the two (2) hour event and those general questions or concerns raised most specifically related to <br /> 52 density, large lots or the potential to create a large lot district, accessory structures, and lot splits; <br /> 53 announced the upcoming second community open house scheduled for March 25, 2010 and the <br /> 54 specific discussion points anticipated at that open house centering on residential districts, with a <br /> 55 more defined outline providing and pertaining to business districts. <br /> 56 Mr. Paschke advised that, from staff's perspective, business district zoning designations had been <br /> 57 drafted, and also an outline or format of the overall document and its organization. <br /> 58 Residential Districts <br /> 59 Mr. Paschke reviewed the highlights of the residential district, noting that staff and the <br /> 60 consultants would then take generalized comments from the Commissioners and refine the drafts <br /> 61 to move forward with the intent of a document for the upcoming open house. <br /> 62 Discussion items and clarifications included the number of accessory structures, including a <br /> 63 garden shed and overall maximum lot square footages; "up to" total allowable square footage of <br /> 64 accessory structures at 1,008 square feet; whether the current language was ambiguous and <br /> 65 needed further clarification, possibly by adding the cumulative total size to the chart; maximum <br /> 66 floor area per lot; exterior dimension of a home's footprint related to accessory structures (current <br /> 67 Section 1004.015) not exceeding 85% of exterior footprint of principal structure; Section <br /> 68 1003.02a.2 related to larger garages and matching pitched roofs or architectural elements for <br /> 69 design aesthetics and based on minimal impacts for adjacent properties; and performance <br /> 70 standards versus design criteria with unintentional inflexible tones for interpretation by the zoning <br /> 71 administrator. <br /> 72 Further discussion included definition of a multi family building and complex related to <br /> 73 townhomes; clarification of exterior materials and/or color compatibility for garden and/or <br /> 74 accessory structures; wind towers and solar panels included in a separate "supplemental <br /> 75 regulations" portion of the code currently being drafted; height determinations (Table 1003.1) for <br /> 76 midpoint of roof trusses; and definition of height included in the definition section based on <br /> 77 Building Code definitions. <br /> 78 Additional discussion included modifications to Page 3, Section 1003.04 for front yard setbacks <br /> 79 and averages for a new home and based on Comprehensive Plan guidance to create a more <br /> 80 pedestrian friendly environment by bringing buildings closer to the street; with clarification that <br /> 81 setbacks can be less than the required thirty feet (30') if averaged with those existing adjacent <br /> 82 properties; preferences to avoid the "garage with attached house" design element; and the intent <br /> 40 <br />