Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Williams said yes and added that it could achieve 30 dwelling units per acre. <br /> Ms. Stern then presented her report, stating that the Design Guidelines the Commission <br /> received in its packet and the version Mr. Williams just described is Draft No. 6. She <br /> noted that this version incorporated a number of changes resulting from the Joint <br /> Session and a follow-up Task Force meeting on January 6, 2011. She then discussed <br /> the issues as listed on page 4 of the staff report. <br /> • Option which does not significantly change the existing curb line on Owens Drive. <br /> An Owens Drive option showing the existing curb lines and median, and <br /> therefore requiring minimal change to the configuration of Owens Drive has been <br /> included (page 18 of the Standards and Design Guidelines). <br /> • Minimum height of retail buildings. The suggestion was to have a minimum <br /> height for retail buildings which would create a comfortable sense of enclosure <br /> on the street. A wide street like Owens Drive will require some substantial <br /> buildings on the edges to create a sense of enclosed space that would make it a <br /> more comfortable pedestrian experience. A 25-foot minimum height requirement <br /> for principal structures has been included (page 12 of the Standards and Design <br /> Guidelines) <br /> • Specific or Generalized Permitted Uses. There were numerous discussions <br /> regarding making the list of uses more general or specific, what uses should be <br /> prohibited, and what uses are subject to a Conditional Use Permit. There was a <br /> struggle with prohibiting liquor stores because there was a desire to allow <br /> wine-tasting, and no distinction was drawn between liquor stores and wine bar <br /> sales that the Task Force wanted to allow. A revised list of permitted uses, <br /> conditionally permitted uses, and prohibited uses has been established <br /> (pp. 15-16 of the Standards and Design Guidelines). <br /> • Need for some flexibility regarding setbacks. This flexibility exists with the <br /> language under "Review Process" which provides for flexibility in implementing <br /> both the standards and the guidelines (p. 5 of the Standards and Design <br /> Guidelines). <br /> • Appropriate language for guidelines. There are no "shalls" as these are <br /> guidelines, rather than standards, and are clearly more flexible. However, some <br /> "shalls" were changed to "shoulds" (pp. 5, 6, 13, 33, and 49 of the Standards <br /> and Design Guidelines). <br /> • Make bike and pedestrian circulation around and through the development <br /> clearer. Text and a legend on diagrams have been added to identify bike and <br /> pedestrian paths (pp. 7 and 9 of the Standards and Design Guidelines). <br /> EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, January 26, 2011 Page 6 of 40 <br />