2010-12-01_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, December 01, 2010 Page 2 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS still under staff review for additional fine-tuning 50 and consistency and formatting. 51 Staff recommended approval of the various elements as presented tonight; and 52 as detailed in the Request for Planning Commission Action dated December 1, 53 2010. 54 Vice Chair Boerigter asked staff if there were any noteworthy properties on the 55 proposed zoning map or any significantly changed since the last Planning 56 Commission hearing. 57 Mr. Paschke advised that all properties brought forward had been reviewed and 58 determinations recommended as presented, following a detailed review of 59 anomalies identified during the process and as they related to the 60 Comprehensive Plan guidance and zoning designation. 61 Member Gisselquist noted the property along the north of Roselawn Cemetery 62 and sought clarification of the ownership and whether that wasn’t part of 63 Reservoir Woods. Mr. Paschke advised that the entire site was owned by 64 Roselawn Cemetery, with the City holding several easements, and was thus 65 recommended for Institutional zoning. 66 1004.05 subd. A.2 (page 3; One-and Two-Family Design Standards): Vice Chair 67 Boerigter brought up his previously stated issues with regard to design standards 68 related to garage doors and their setbacks, and questions if there had been 69 substantive changes since previous discussions; and noted a minor 70 typographical correction in that section from “Garage doors hall to [shall]…” 71 Mr. Paschke advised that staff had reviewed and included revised standards that 72 were representative of discussions at previous Planning Commission meetings. 73 Vice Chair Boerigter clarified with staff that there were no other staff- 74 implemented or staff-driven changes other than those previously brought forward 75 and discussed at Planning Commission meetings. 76 Mr. Paschke advised that the only change completed by staff included that of the 77 High Density Residential -2 District that had been split into two (2) districts: one 78 with a density cap and the other without; but that both were predicated on similar 79 design standards, setbacks, etc.; and were represented on the proposed Zoning 80 Map as distinct and separate color coding. Mr. Paschke noted that the only 81 district that may end up moving forward to the City Council level independent of 82 Planning Commission recommendations would be the INTRODUCTION section 83 with the only changes addition of definitions; and any changes in the 84 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS made by staff to avoid duplication or 85 redundancy. Mr. Paschke advised that the only other changes were corrections 86 to language, typographical errors, and/or formatting to improve the flow of the 87 document. 88 At the request of Commissioner Cook, Mr. Paschke advised that those items 89 remaining “red lined” in the document had been inadvertently left in red rather 90 than corrected to black due to staff’s attempt to process the meeting packet 91 during the reduced work hours immediately prior to he Thanksgiving holiday 92 break. 93 At the request of Commissioner Wozniak, Mr. Paschke clarified that staff was 94 continuing to work on the visibility triangle portion of PERFORMANCE 95 STANDARDS, in conjunction with the Engineering and Planning Divisions, to 96 provide language that would flow across the board in all districts, rather than 97 those specific to a particular use; but noted that the verbiage would be similar in 98 intent to that provided in this draft. 99 Commissioner Gottfried arrived at approximately 5:40 p.m. 100