2010-10-27_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, October 27, 2010 Page 19 Ayes: 5 905 Nays: 0 906 Motion carried. 907 7. Discussion Items 908 Mr. Paschke noted that this PERFORMANCE STANDARDS Chapter was introduced in 909 its first draft format for the Commission to ask questions and provide staff with their 910 individual and corporate verbal and written comment and direction as they proceeded 911 and for final development of a draft at their November 3, 2010 meeting. Mr. Paschke 912 advised that staff was working in conjunction with the City Attorney in crafting this 913 chapter, and anticipated continued modifications as the document developed. Mr. 914 Paschke noted that certain uses requiring Conditional Use application standards had 915 been removed from the standards section and reinstated in the PERFORMANCE 916 STANDARDS chapter. Mr. Paschke noted that one area still missing from this chapter 917 was telecommunication provisions, with staff considering modification to the City’s 918 telecommunication ordinance that would be incorporated into this chapter. 919 Member Boerigter noted that the Tree Preservation section was new; and questioned 920 what “land alteration” referenced; with Mr. Paschke advising that its definition was still 921 pending, but it was the intent that building modifications or new construction would trigger 922 the need to meet the new tree preservation requirements. 923 Mr. Paschke clarified that, depending on the threshold determined, an applicant for a 924 home addition would need to provide a plan showing existing trees and impacts of 925 proposed revisions, subject to restoration or preservation. 926 Public Comment 927 Randy Neprash 928 Mr. Neprash provided his credentials in working at the state level on environmental 929 standards, mostly related to storm water management, at the firm of Bonestroo, Civil 930 engineers; and provided his written comments as a bench handout, attached hereto and 931 made a part hereof. Mr. Neprash reviewed those written comments in more detail, and 932 his rationale for those comments and recommendations, specific to environmental 933 standards. 934 Discussion among Commissioners, staff and Mr. Neprash included how to quantify 935 negative environmental impacts and standards for individual parameters; traffic issues as 936 they relate to how a road is designed, how it is currently used, or significant impacts from 937 increased use from a particular redevelopment project. 938 Member Gisselquist left the meeting at this time, approximately 10:13 p.m. 939 Mr. Paschke questioned the fairness for established businesses, with roadways often 940 designed for significant truck traffic, but not possibly used to their maximum design 941 standards at this time, to make an arbitrary judgment, such as in the Twin Lakes 942 Redevelopment Area where future uses will be significantly different than today; but their 943 design standards and infrastructure prepared to accommodate that future use. As a 944 Planner, Mr. Paschke suggested that there were other ways to accomplish the intent of 945 Mr. Neprash, through requiring traffic studies rather than design standards; and opined 946 that whether a use is significant was objective based on individual perspectives. 947 Further discussion included where the standards became applicable based on “build out;” 948 references to the proposed asphalt plant as an example in applying environmental 949 standards; and the additional enforcement mechanisms through this Performance 950 Standards chapter; and staff’s expressing their willingness to further consider Mr. 951 Neprash’s suggestion #9. 952 Discussion among Commissioners and Staff 953 Member Boerigter questioned environmental versus design standards and an applicant’s 954 obligation to comply whether stated or not; how much the proposed Performance 955 Standards were supposed to heighten standards versus clarifying or reiterating existing 956