Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, April 7, 2010 <br />Page 5 <br />Discussion included any guidance from past practices related to similar situations <br />197 <br />versus a case by case basis; public notice of the pending Open House; <br />198 <br />comments and recommendations of the City Attorney related to this <br />199 <br />consideration; super majority vote requirements of the Planning Commission and <br />200 <br />City Council. <br />201 <br />Chair Doherty opined that, while wishing that this could be treated as a minor <br />202 <br />amendment, he could not support that, and considered it a major amendment. <br />203 <br />Commissioners Gottfried and Gisselquist concurred. <br />204 <br />Commissioner Gisselquist expressed his support of amending the <br />205 <br />Comprehensive Plan to allow the uses; however, advised that he considered it a <br />206 <br />major amendment. <br />207 <br />Commissioner Cook expressed no preference either way. <br />208 <br />Commissioner Boerigter supported consensus that it represented a major <br />209 <br />amendment. <br />210 <br />Member Doherty moved, seconded by Member Gottfried to RECOMMEND <br />211 <br />TO THE CITY COUNCIL their determination that a COMPREHENSIVE PLAN <br />212 <br />TEXT AMDNMENT, to allow Institutional land uses in other land use <br />213 <br />designations as detailed in the staff report dated April 7, 2010, is a MAJOR <br />214 <br />AMENDMENT that requires a public hearing and super-majority <br />215 <br />recommendation by the Planning Commission prior to being approved by <br />216 <br />the City Council. <br />217 <br />Commissioner Best opined that a minor amendment would be considered <br />218 <br />technical. <br />219 <br />Ayes: 7 <br />220 <br />Nays: 0 <br />221 <br />Motion carried. <br />222 <br />a. Zoning Code Rewrite – City Planner to discuss upcoming schedule and <br />223 <br />present the Business and Mixed Use Districts for consideration by the <br />224 <br />Commission <br />225 <br />Mr. Paschke reviewed the schedule to-date for the Residential portion of the <br />226 <br />updated Zoning Ordinance and upcoming Commercial Zoning discussions. Mr. <br />227 <br />Paschke advised that it was staff’s intent to schedule a public hearing for the May <br />228 <br />Planning Commission meeting to make subsequent recommendation to the City <br />229 <br />Council on the Residential portion; and sought additional comment from <br />230 <br />Commissioners specific to Residential Districts at this time and prior to the May <br />231 <br />meeting. <br />232 <br />Residential <br />233 <br />Discussion included clarification of accessory structures (Commissioner <br />234 <br />Gisselquist), adding language on total square footage for accessory buildings for <br />235 <br />“…a total of…”, in addition to minor tweaks at the staff level; and necessary <br />236 <br />clarification for One and Two Family Design Standards (Commissioner Boerigter) <br />237 <br />on specific circumstances when a garage door “may” or “shall” for consistency <br />238 <br />and clarity in not exceeding the plane of the building (Section 1003.06 – page 5) <br />239 <br />or when they could deviate. <br />240 <br />Commissioner Boerigter opined that it was hard for him to support such strict <br />241 <br />design standard obligations suggesting that a garage door creates a less <br />242 <br />pedestrian-friendly environment. <br />243 <br />Mr. Paschke advised that staff would return to the next meeting with clarification <br />244 <br />as requested; and again requested that any additional comments for either the <br />245 <br />Residential and/or Commercial portions be provided by e-mail from individual <br />246 <br />commissioners at their earliest convenience. Mr. Paschke advised that those <br />247 <br /> <br />