2010-07-07_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, July 07, 2010 Page 6 ultimate decision by the City at the recommendation of the Planning Commission 248 for that District. 249 Michael Lamb, The Cunningham Group Consultants 250 Mr. Lamb, focusing on form-based or design-based approaches to land use, 251 noted that this was a more rigorous way to provide special attention to specific 252 areas in the community, with the Twin Lakes Redevelopment area the only 253 District identified as Commercial Mixed Use (CMU). Mr. Lamb advised that this 254 approach provided a more detailed or comprehensive/holistic approach, creating 255 value, and recognizing that the sum of the individual parts is greater than one 256 parcel and/or land use over a number of years and to ensure that the pieces are 257 identified upfront and planned to reinforce the larger area. Mr. Lamb noted that 258 this form-based approach defined and connected the public realm of an area, 259 including all transit realms, not just one property owner, but in combination with 260 the City, and cited the example of the Arona redevelopment. 261 Discussion among staff, Mr. Lamb, and Commissioners included how this 262 approach worked with one or multiple developers over a number of years; impact 263 of political will applied and the community’s vision identified through and in 264 conjunction with its Comprehensive Plan, as well as providing real estate value 265 and community value; stakeholders identified as a developer(s) and residents of 266 the community itself. 267 Additional discussion included proximity of the first developer to adjacent lots and 268 the design concept that will set parameter with the City’s blessing; the community 269 side versus the developer/investment side of the larger composition; creation of a 270 level of balance within the realm of design standards in place for mixed use; 271 economic environment cycles; advantages of working from the same template for 272 all parties; and recognizing that this is a flexible tool allowing the City to take the 273 past-used Planned Unit Development (PUD) approach one step further. 274 Discussion included the existing Park and Ride facility and whether it would have 275 been allowed under this new form-based land use plan (under allowed uses – 276 page 14); how to determine if a building design fits with other uses in a mixed 277 use district; quality and composition of environment versus use; purpose of a 278 regulating map in determining and responding to building placement an other 279 design standards and requirements; campus uses versus massive structures and 280 specific uses; and the obligation of the City to initiate a regulating map. 281 Further discussion included discussions to-date initiating a regulating map; 282 impediments for the City to fully develop a regulating map before initial 283 development; ability to bring all land owners and the community to the table to 284 provide input of the larger development; and recognizing the complexity of this 285 task; and the ability for the City to be more proactive than reactive. 286 Mr. Paschke reviewed the process for creating a regulatory map, as the next step 287 after the zoning code and ordinance are adopted. 288 Member Boerigter Verbal Comments 289 Page 2 – Window and Door Openings 290 Member Boerigter questioned if the design standards were industry standards, to 291 which Ms. Rhees responded affirmatively, that they were tested at actual 292 percentages. 293 Rooftop Equipment 294 Member Boerigter questioned if cell tower antennae were addressed in this area 295 Mr. Paschke advised that regulations had yet to be developed, and would be a 296 separate and distinct section of the code. 297