2010-09-29_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, September 29, 2010 Page 11 detailed in the Request for Planning Commission Action dated September 512 29, 2010. 513 Ayes: 7 514 Nays: 0 515 Motion carried. 516 e. PROJECT FILE 0017 517 Consideration of revised text for RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS section 518 1004.05G ATTACHED GARAGES and 1004.06 ONE AND TWO FAMILY 519 DESIGN STANDARDS, removed for further refinement at the Planning 520 Commission meeting of July 7, 2010 521 Chair Doherty opened the Public Hearing for PROJECT FILE 0017. 522 City Planner Thomas Paschke distributed a bench handout, attached hereto 523 and made a part thereof, representing additional comments of Member 524 Wozniak, incorporated with other recommended changes in the meeting packet 525 for Section 1003.06 One-and Two-Family Design Standards, further detailed in 526 the Request for Planning Commission Action dated September 29, 2010, 527 subsequent to previous Planning Commission discussion and further consultant 528 and staff review. 529 Discussion among staff and Commissioners included garage door and building 530 façade relating to front façade; rationale for consultant analysis for garage door 531 size related to percentage of building façade; and how the design standards fit 532 into the existing housing market. 533 Member Boerigter reiterated his previous concerns and opposition to stipulating 534 such stringent design standards related to garage doors and front building 535 facades; and cited various examples he’d provided to staff on newer homes in 536 the community that would not meet the proposed design standards. Member 537 Boerigter opined that homes built in today’s market versus were not being built 538 with single car garages and new construction homes or those built within the last 539 five (5) years should be distinguished from those older existing homes when 540 creating design standards. Member Boerigter further opined that the first 541 paragraph and position encouraging specific design standards, while eliminating 542 A and B would still provide very aesthetically-pleasing homes; and allow some 543 flexibility in waiving requirements based on physical restraints. 544 Member Cook suggested removal of the specifics of Sections A and B for one- 545 and two-family design standards. 546 Member Gisselquist concurred with Member Boerigter; and opined that the 547 concern for homeowners was to have the additional garage space, and fit it into 548 their existing lot. Member Gisselquist opined that the spirit of the standards were 549 applicable; however, the specifics created the problem areas. 550 Member Gottfried suggested that the intent of the design standards was to 551 provide consistency with adjoining or other homes in the neighborhood without 552 being overly restrictive; and establishing thresholds. Member Gottfried opined 553 that there are other design features for a home façade other than garages; and 554 questioned whether the intent was to reinvent existing housing stock or address 555 future functionality; and how restrictive did the Commission want to be to future 556 staff interpretation and Planning Commissions; cautioned the subjective 557 interpretation of “primary function: and further opined that the future economy 558 and new transportation options and technologies would be market driven, and 559 dictate a home’s living space versus vehicle storage/upkeep square footage. 560 Chair Doherty noted other available options to address design standards; and 561 opined that new homes would not have smaller than a 3-car garage; and spoke 562 in support of design enhancements. 563