2010-09-29_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, September 29, 2010 Page 13 Member Wozniak opined that he liked the design standards for other districts; 614 however, he concurred with comments expressed as to whether they’re needed 615 for this district. Member Wozniak agreed that some design standards may be 616 appropriate; however, defining specific number of stories, and number/location of 617 windows seemed restrictive and onerous. 618 Mr. Paschke noted that a church constituted a commercial use; and if the 619 Commission excluded design standards what would their solution be for future 620 construction, not existing facilities. Mr. Paschke opined that most institutional 621 uses have high-end architecture already incorporated; and consideration needed 622 to be given to those buildings that have been completed and if or how they could 623 meet these proposed design standards with their specific articulation; and further 624 opined that some standards didn’t require a significant amount of additional funds 625 to achieve. 626 Member Gottfried suggested there were other features in this district not fully 627 vetted out or considered in the context of various institutional uses. Member 628 Gottfried expressed interest in market-driven standards, allowing for some 629 flexibility to create pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods; however, he opined that 630 there was a need for more examples or illustrations. 631 Member Cook specifically noted the recent library expansion and its current 632 location versus the setback requirements proposed in these design standards. 633 Member Best opined that the intent to make buildings more pedestrian-friendly 634 and address safety was valid, as he took into consideration existing institutional 635 uses and their lack of safety. 636 Mr. Paschke reminded members that the zoning text guided code application, 637 and illustrations only provided examples. 638 Member Wozniak questioned if, in Section 3.2 of the staff report referencing his 639 written comments that had been previously presented, had in actuality been 640 incorporated into this draft as presented. Member Wozniak suggested 641 consideration to a minor tweak on page 2 of the draft, Section G, instead of “four- 642 sided design,” to simply re-title that section as “buildings.” 643 Mr. Paschke thanked Commissioners for their thoughtful comments; and advised 644 that staff would further review this section specific to churches and how to 645 address artistic flair for that type of use; as well as incorporating Member 646 Wozniak’s comments in the next iteration. 647 Public Comment 648 Chair Doherty closed the Public Hearing, with no one appearing for or against. 649 MOTION 650 Member Doherty moved, seconded by Member Gottfried to CONTINUE the 651 DRAFT INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT requirements to the October 27, 2010 652 special meeting of the Planning Commission; with staff directed to provide 653 additional review and comments submitted by Member Wozniak and 654 previously circulated to and reviewed by members. 655 Ayes: 7 656 Nays: 0 657 Motion carried. 658 6. Adjourn 659 Chair Doherty adjourned the meeting at approximately 9:45 p.m. 660