2010-11-03_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, November 03, 2010 Page 8 meeting) 360 Acting Chair Wozniak opened the Public Hearing for PROJECT FILE 0017 as it 361 related to PROPERTY PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. 362 MOTION 363 Member Wozniak moved, seconded by Member Doherty to CONTINUE 364 consideration of adopting new regulations for Title 10, Zoning Regulations 365 of the City Code pertaining to PROPERTY PERFORAMCNE STANDARDS to 366 the November 17, 2010 Special Meeting of the Planning Commission. 367 Ayes: 6 368 Nays: 0 369 Motion carried. 370 PROJECT FILE 0017 d. 371 Acting Chair Wozniak opened the Public Hearing for PROJECT FILE 0017 at 372 7:25 p.m. 373 City Planner Thomas Paschke sought comment and a recommendation to the 374 City Council regarding the new INTRODUCTION portion of City Code, Title 10, 375 Zoning Regulations; specifying intent and purpose, uses not provided in code, 376 jurisdiction and authority, application and implementation, rules of construction 377 and definition. Mr. Paschke noted that this section had received significant 378 interaction by staff with the City Attorney regarding legal information as staffed 379 worked on reviewing of numerous model codes. Mr. Paschke noted that this 380 section would continue to evolve as items are addressed from the current to 381 proposed zoning code and as issues continued to be identified. 382 Mr. Paschke advised that the DEFINITIONS chapter had yet to be finalized and 383 would be a working chapter needing amendment on a quarterly or periodic basis 384 as the new code is initially implemented and practically applied; and noted that 385 the DEFINITIONS chapter would not include sign ordinance definitions, as they 386 were specifically addressed in the sign code chapter and not currently included in 387 the zoning code rewrite. 388 Staff recommended support of the proposed draft INTRODUCTION chapter as 389 presented and detailed in the staff report dated November 3, 2010. 390 Member Gottfried requested definition of a “cluster;” which was duly noted by 391 staff. 392 Discussion among Members and staff included those areas determined not to be 393 generic or needing dual definitions or cross-referencing (e.g. coffee shop, tea 394 house, mortuary, funeral home); how to define restaurant types and their 395 classifications, with current code referencing them based on the type of alcohol 396 served; and the need to recognize that the document will be a conceptual draft or 397 working product as it is implemented and will require further revisions and 398 refinement. 399 Member Gottfried acknowledged that this was a conceptual draft and that 400 additional revisions would be forthcoming; however, he noted the need for careful 401 and consistent vetting of those common elements throughout the document 402 needing to be user-friendly but not remotely practical for incorporation into one 403 area of the document to avoid the very frustrations trying to be avoided for users. 404 Member Gisselquist noted the need for definition of “cemetery,” as well as 405 “funeral;” identifying and defining the type(s) of acceptable “composting 406 container(s)” and cross-referencing that with compost regulations; “daycare” and 407 “daycare center” needing to reflect adult daycare, as well as family or group 408 family daycare facilities; with staff noting the state statute definitions as 409 recommended by the City Attorney to staff by reference from state law; and 410