2010-07-07_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, July 07, 2010 Page 11 Discussion of Member Wozniak Written Comments 496 1005.02 – Accessory Buildings, Paragraph B 497 Discussion included the need for clarification for uniformity; current code 498 regulations requiring a permit for a shed. 499 Paragraph D – Driveway Required 500 Mr. Paschke advised that the existing code and proposed defined the term, for 501 an “all weather surface” and the types of materials and/or products permissible 502 for installation, whether pervious or impervious, would be detailed. 503 1005.05 – Multi-Family Design Standards 504 Mr. Paschke advised that there was not currently a triggering mechanism, and 505 while staff didn’t disagree, requested support and direction for such language 506 from the Commission. 507 Discussion included whether 50% was a reasonable threshold; infrequency of 508 use based on lack of ability to add units to a high or medium density apartment 509 building unless intentionally phased with most existing complexes already maxed 510 out and most developed in the 1960’s or 1970’s with minimal ability for an 511 addition; comparison of the Har Mar Apartment remodel, currently implementing 512 the majority of design standards; and consensus that this was a reasonable 513 threshold to incorporate. 514 Chair Doherty and Commissioners Wozniak, Gottfried, and Gisselquist were 515 supportive in general of including the proposed statement as indicated by 516 Member Wozniak; and staff was directed to incorporate the statement. 517 1005.06 – Table of Residential Uses 518 Similar to discussions in the Commercial Section (1004.03) 519 1005.08 – Low Density Residential – 1 (LDR-1) District 520 Both of these items had been previously discussed. 521 Mr. Paschke addressed City Attorney comments related to Residential Districts, 522 including providing references for performance standards in the first chart (Page 523 1, Item a.2); and inclusion of a sidebar comment (Page 5) to clarify the three 524 sections on garages on fronts of buildings, with criteria of A or B achieved, or two 525 of the three criteria in Section C. 526 Public Comment 527 Charlie Disney, 2265 Marion Road 528 Mr. Disney addressed his concerns regarding a current subdivision in his 529 neighborhood, currently pending action by the City Council, and spoke in 530 opposition to changes in this lot and the uniqueness of the neighborhood; and 531 alleged that the City Planner had proposed three lots, even though the applicant 532 had not originally sought more than two lots. Mr. Disney sought to preserve the 533 property values, trees, green space, and wildlife; and expressed concern with 534 higher density and safe access with additional construction. Mr. Disney stated 535 that, “we’re all suspicious, they need more tax money, why else would they ruin 536 our neighborhood;” and sought support from the Planning Commission in 537 response to the proposal of the City Planner, questioning how the neighborhood 538 benefited from approving this application 539 Associate City Planner Bryan Lloyd 540 Mr. Lloyd provided a brief summary of the proposed subdivision heard at the City 541 Council level for this lot on Marion Road, currently consisting of two lots 542 substantially larger than today’s minimum standards, and unrelated to the 543 rezoning proposal to lower minimum lot sizes to bring a major portion of existing 544 residential lots into compliance with City Code. Mr. Lloyd advised that the lots in 545 question could be subdivided under today’s regulations; and that the proposed 546