Mixed Use Conservation District
Public Input Meeting
April 10, 2006 and April 13, 2006 Meeting Minutes Summary
The City held two public input meetings concerning the future of the Mixed Use Conservation District (MUC) on April 10th and 13th of 2006.
Many residents addressed the character of the area, which can be hard to define. Some suggested that it may be exemplified by unique bungalow style homes. Others noted that they appreciated the atmosphere of their neighborhood compared to the repetition of master planned communities.
Although the character may be hard for many to define, there was general consensus that this character is an asset and should be retained as the City and area develop.
Several speakers stated that additional regulation could cause financial constraints that may hinder redevelopment efforts. Some suggested that to counter financial hardships, the City should support preservation by offering incentives to maintain structures.
Restrictions were brought up by several speakers. There was a belief that restrictions should be implemented to ensure that new developments and renovations conform to the character of the area. Such restrictions could include regulations affecting wooden fencing, building materials, garage structures, roof shingles and eaves, porches, signs, and shutters. However, there was no consensus that all of these aspects should be strictly regulated. Deed restrictions were also identified as a possible option for the district.
Other speakers spoke out against further regulation of the district. They stated that the Conditional Use Permit process is too restrictive preventing many beneficial redevelopment projects, and further restrictions could discourage new businesses from moving to the area.
Although there is resistance to excessive commercial uses because of the community's residential roots, the benefit of commercial redevelopment was discussed, and there was support expressed for coexistence between both types of uses. One speaker even suggested expanding the list of acceptable uses for the district to allow a more diverse mix of office and retail.
Other issues that were brought up include the addition of a neighborhood park, regulations prohibiting demolition of structures, and expanding existing structures. One proposal for expansion was to add on to the rear of buildings, leaving the historic facade facing the street intact.
Residents also had suggestions for the progress of developing standards for development in the MUC. Before people make plans to make additions to their homes or alter their buildings, acceptable changes should be identified by the City. Architectural elements that characterize the area should be identified as well as historic structures that are assets to the community. Also, questions were raised concerning what power the City will have to enforce maintenance regulations, and what measures would be taken from commercial structures demolishing existing buildings.