Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutMinutes - 2004/10/26 - RegularPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • OCTOBER 26, 2004 INITIATION: 1. CALL TO ORDER Pursuant to the Agenda posted October 8, 2004, Chairman Griffiths called the meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, October 26, 2004. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners: Le Berthon, Blum, Seibert, Yu, Griffiths Also Present: City Attorney Martin and Community Development Director Dawson Assistant Planner Gulick, and Assistant Planner Liu 4. TIME FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO SPEAK • 5. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 12, 2004 RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE AS SUBMITTED Commissioner Blum noted a correction; the meeting of October 12, 2004, was not adjourned by Chairman Griffiths but rather by Vice - Chairman Blum. Commissioner Seibert moved to approve the minutes as corrected, seconded by Vice- Chairman Blum. Chairman Griffiths refrained from approving the minutes because he was absent at the meeting of October 12, 2004. 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 7. NEW BUSINESS: A. DISCUSSION ITEM: THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL CONDUCT A STUDY SESSION RELATIVE TO THE ON -GOING CONSULTANT STUDY OF RESIDENTIAL DESIGN CRITERIA 41) Director Dawson — Read the Staff Report dated October 26, 2004. Chairman Griffiths — Asked the consultant if they had a presentation. Planning Commission October 26, 2004 Page 2 Mark Brodeur. — Stated that they did have a presentation. Chairman Griffiths — Asked if there were any questions before the presentation began. Mark Brodeur— Gave a presentation with the following outline: 1. Project Purpose and Today's Workshop 2. Summary of June 29, 2004 workshop Explained the visual preference survey that over 150 people participated in. Text Questions result summary Visual Preference Results Summary 3. Summary of September 23, 2004 workshop 4. Frequently asked questions Why was this process selected? Concerns about being able to add on to or modify their home Can the city tighten up and further restrict the size of homes Could the city actually prohibit two -story homes in the future Could the city set up a board or commission to review the proposed individual home plans 5. Initial ideas and concepts Adjust lot coverage as incentive for single -story homes. Require second story front setbacks for all two -story structures except for genuine "period" architectural styles which do not have such setbacks. 6. Planning Commission Input: The Commissioners provided their input relative to the current development standards and suggested specific areas where improvements might be possible. Staff also suggested specific code amendments which would address recurring problems associated with ongoing development. More specifically, the following items were discussed: ♦ Fine tune the second story setback requirements for each zone to provide for greater variation in architectural appearance. ♦ Fine -tune the front yard setback for the second story level so as to provide better architectural relief and reduce the appearance of bulkiness. • Draft criteria to limit the monolithic appearance of front entryways while encouraging more traditional "front porches ". ♦ Draft criteria to better restrict the amount of paving on all Tots while better ensuring more permeable lot area so as to reduce runoff and increase permeability. • Devise appropriate criteria to increase the amount of front yard landscaping and decrease the amount of driveway paving. (e.g. re- examine current criteria for u -shape driveways, etc.) N: \Word \Department \CDD \MINS \PC MINUTES 2004 \PC MINUTES October 26, 2004.doc " Planning Commission October 26, 2004 Page 3 f& Consider allowing tandem parking in certain instances so as to reduce the prominence of garages. f& Increase the width of required guest parking spaces in the multiple family zones so as to make guest parking more user friendly. f& Devise incentives and bonuses to encourage lot consolidation, reward development of wider Tots and limit the range of development on narrow lots (e.g. require that all future subdivisions comply with certain minimum lot width requirements or limit development of extremely narrow Tots to single story dwelling(s). f& Consider allowing balconies on the front facades of dwellings, where the view from such balconies would be onto a public street or the front yard area of abutting Tots. f& Create a C.U.P. process to allow "customized" or "period" type homes which may reflect a certain architectural quality or uniqueness such that it may not strictly comply with pre - established zoning criteria but may be superior in terms of design. (This would allow an avenue for creative architecture and superior design should a property owner or developer wish to avail themselves to this opportunity as well as the accompanying scrutiny). 7. Next Steps Draft potential regulations Community workshop 3 to be held with development industry professions Planning commission consideration City council consideration 8. COMMUNICATIONS: None 9. MATTERS FROM CITY OFFICIALS: None 10. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chairman Griffiths adjourned the meeting at 9:15 p.m. faSecretary N: \Word \Department \CDD \MINS \PC MINUTES 2004 \PC MINUTES October 26, 2004.doc r