CC_Minutes_2010_1213 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

•70 Discussion of Member Wozniak Written Comments 1371 1005.02 Accessory Buildings, Paragraph B 1372 Discussion included the need for clarification for uniformity; current code regulations requiring a 1373 permit for a shed. 1374 Paragraph D Driveway Required 1375 Mr. Paschke advised that the existing code and proposed defined the term, for an "all weather 1376 surface" and the types of materials and /or products permissible for installation, whether pervious 1377 or impervious, would be detailed. 1378 1005.05 Multi- Family Design Standards 1379 Mr. Paschke advised that there was not currently a triggering mechanism, and while staff didn't 1380 disagree, requested support and direction for such language from the Commission. 1381 Discussion included whether 50% was a reasonable threshold; infrequency of use based on lack 1382 of ability to add units to a high or medium density apartment building unless intentionally phased 1383 with most existing complexes already maxed out and most developed in the 1960's or 1970's 1384 with minimal ability for an addition; comparison of the Har Mar Apartment remodel, currently 1385 implementing the majority of design standards; and consensus that this was a reasonable 1386 threshold to incorporate. 1387 Chair Doherty and Commissioners Wozniak, Gottfried, and Gisselquist were supportive in 403 388 general of including the proposed statement as indicated by Member Wozniak; and staff was 89 directed to incorporate the statement. 1390 1005.06 Table of Residential Uses 1391 Similar to discussions in the Commercial Section (1004.03) 1392 1005.08 Low Density Residential 1 (LDR -1) District 1393 Both of these items had been previously discussed. 1394 Mr. Paschke addressed City Attorney comments related to Residential Districts, including 1395 providing references for performance standards in the first chart (Page 1, Item a.2); and inclusion 1396 of a sidebar comment (Page 5) to clarify the three sections on garages on fronts of buildings, with 1397 criteria of A or B achieved, or two of the three criteria in Section C. 1398 Public Comment 1399 Charlie Disney, 2265 Marion Road 1400 Mr. Disney addressed his concerns regarding a current subdivision in his neighborhood, currently 1401 pending action by the City Council, and spoke in opposition to changes in this lot and the 1402 uniqueness of the neighborhood; and alleged that the City Planner had proposed three lots, even 1403 though the applicant had not originally sought more than two lots. Mr. Disney sought to preserve 1404 the property values, trees, green space, and wildlife; and expressed concern with higher density 1405 and safe access with additional construction. Mr. Disney stated that, "we're all suspicious, they fil 406 need more tax money, why else would they ruin our neighborhood;" and sought support from the