Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-06-11 MinutesPlanning Commission June 11, 2007 Page I of 21 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on June 11, 2007 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS DISCUSSED ACTION TAKEN MINUTES: May 29, 2007 Approved Page 3 VAC 07-2600: (2474 E. JOYCE / JOYCE BUSINESS PARK, 176) Approved Page 3 PPL 07-2581: (MOUNTAIN RANCH II, 479,480,518,519) Approved Page 3 CUP 07-2560: (BOHOT, 679) Tabled Page 4 RZN 07-2592: (BELLWOOD S/D II, 400) Tabled Page 5 CUP 07-2624: (SANG CENTER/YOUTHCAN!, 442) Approved Page 6 LSD 07-2594: (THE VILLAGE AT SHILOH, 519) Approved Page 9 RZN 07-2602: (ARMAC ENGINEERING, 523) Forwarded Page 11 RZN 07-2603: (KOOSHESH, 438) Tabled Page 12 ADM 07-2577: (DOWNTOWN DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT) Forwarded Page 10 ADM 07-2589: (CH. 172, PARKING AND LOADING) Forwarded Page 12 A DVD copy of each Planning Commission meeting is available for viewing in the Fayetteville Planning Division. Planning Commission June 11, 2007 Page 2 of 21 MEMBERS PRESENT James Graves Jill Anthes Matthew Cabe Audy Lack Christine Myres Lois Bryant STAFF PRESENT Jeremy Pate Andrew Garner Jesse Fulcher Leif Olson Tim Conklin Glenn Newman/Engineering CITY ATTORNEY: Kit Williams MEMBERS ABSENT Sean Trumbo Alan Ostner STAFF ABSENT Matt Casey/Engineering Planning Commission Chair Jill Anthes called the meeting to order. Commissioner Anthes requested for all cell phones to be turned off and offered audio devices. Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, called the Planning Commission roll. Commissioner Ostner and Trumbo were not present. Planning Commission June 11, 2007 Page 3 of 21 Consent: Approval of the minutes from the May 29, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. VAC 07-2600: (2474 E. JOYCE / JOYCE BUSINESS PARK, 176): Submitted by STEVE CLARK for property located at 2474 E. JOYCE BLVD. The property is zoned R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and contains approximately 5.0 acres. The request is to vacate a portion of a utility easement within the subject property. PPL 07-2581: Preliminary Plat (MOUNTAIN RANCH II, 479,480,518,519): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES for property located S & W OF PERSIMMON AND I-540, AND E OF MOUNTAIN RANCH S/D PH. I. The property is zoned multiple zoning districts and contains approximately 79.27 acres. The request is for a subdivision with 30 single-family lots, 2 multi -family lots and 2 commercial out -lots. Commissioner Anthes read descriptions of the items on the Consent Agenda. She asked if any member of the Commissioner or the public would like to remove any of the items on the consent agenda. Seeing no response, Anthes called for a motion. Motion: Commissioner Graves moved to approve the consent agenda. Commissioner Lack seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 6-0-0. Planning Commission June 11, 2007 Page 4 of 21 Old Business: CUP 07-2560: (BOHOT, 679): Submitted by WILMA BOHOT for property located at 124 E. 26TH CIRCLE. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.38 acres. The request is for an in-home occupation, daycare, in the RSF-4 Zoning District. THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED THIS ITEM BE TABLED TO JUNE 25, 2007 Commissioner Anthes introduced the item, and noted that only six commissioners were present at the meeting. Anthes noted the applicant had requested the item to be tabled due to the low attendance and five required affirmative votes for a conditional use request to carry the item. Seeing an audience member who requested to speak, Anthes asked staff to give an abbreviated staff report. Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner, gave an abbreviated staff report, describing the request and staff s recommendation. Terry Talbot, citizen, stated the applicant should be given a chance and an opportunity for the daycare proposal. He stated he does not believe this neighborhood is a retirement area, as many have mentioned. Motion: Commissioner Lack stated that based on the applicant's indicated desire to table the item for two weeks, he made a motion to table until the June 25 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Graves seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion to table passed with a vote of 6-0-0. Planning Commission June 11, 2007 Page 5 of 21 New Business: RZN 07-2592: (BELLWOOD S/D II, 400): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOC for property located at W OF RUPPLE RD., S OF PHASE I OF BELLWOOD S/D. The property is zoned RMF -12, RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY, 12 UNITS PER ACRE and contains approximately 8.41 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RMF -18, Residential Multi -Family, 18 units per acre. THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED THIS ITEM BE TABLED TO JUNE 25, 2007 Commissioner Anthes introduced the item, and stated the applicant has requested it to be tabled until June 25. Anthes asked if there were anyone present to speak to the request. Seeing none, she called for a motion. Motion: Commissioner Myres made a motion to table the item until the June 25 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Cabe seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion to table passed with a vote of 6-0-0. Planning Commission June 11, 2007 Page 6 of 21 CUP 07-2624: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: (SANG CENTER/YOUTHCAN!, 442): Submitted by CREATIVE ATION NETWORK FOR YOUTH DBA YOUTHCAN! for property located at 818 N. SANG AVENUE. The property is zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE. The request is for a Cultural & Recreational Facility (Use Unit #4) in the RSF-4 Zoning District. Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner, gave the staff report. Fulcher gave a brief history of the property discussing previous non-residential uses of the property, including churches and most recently a Senior Center. Fulcher described the project for the current applicant, YouthCAN!, including hours of operation, function of their programs and how the facility would be used, as described in more detail in the staff report. Staff had not received any public comment until a letter from Waterman Woods POA was received in opposition the day before the meeting. Finding the proposed use fits into the community and is a compatible and complementary use, staff recommends approval, with conditions as listed. Jim Hicks (citizen) spoke to his uncertainty about the function of the organization, asking if the children served were regular schoolchildren. Eric Whisenhunt (citizen) 2025 W. Berry Street, across the street from site, stated that the Senior Center was never a problem. Restricted hours aided in that being the case. Stated the same concerns about the type of youth attending, and asked if there would be any convicted criminals, juveniles, etc. because of his children in the neighborhood. He stated he is not opposed to a program for youth, but concerned about the type of youths, and if they would be wandering the area, for the safety of his children. Walt Eilers, President of Waterman Woods POA, spoke in opposition to the project, citing the length of time of the operations, especially into the evenings, and how many people might come to the facility, with regard to traffic concerns. Filers described the cut -through nature of Sang Avenue, and the traffic control devices that had recently been installed. Eilers stated the neighborhood association opposed the request because it would change the character of the neighborhood. Terry Chadick (citizen) stated she lived on Razorback Road and was on the Board of Directors for YouthCAN! Commissioner Anthes requested Chadick speak as part of the applicant presentation instead. Barbara Price -Davis (applicant) presented the application on behalf of YouthCan!. She gave the following information: 90% of the people served by the program are general, everyday children and parents. Art programs are used as a prevention model foundation, by mentoring through quality visual arts, community service and team building. Ages range from 18 months to 80 years old, including Mommy and Me art classes. Once or twice a month a family dinner night is offered. The facility is open on Saturday, and offers summer camps, along with meals for students on reduced meal programs. There is more parking located here than at the current facility. An after school program is desirable in this location, as well, and would operate until approximately 6 pm. The center is a very structured activity center, with kids in the neighborhood a preferred clientele. The Planning Commission June 11, 2007 Page 7 of 21 change of the character in the neighborhood is anticipated to be a positive one. Commissioner Anthes asked about the hours of operation listed in the application. Price -Davis stated that if an after-school program was permitted, the hours would extend to 6 pm. Additionally, family dinner nights, and Saturday programs occasionally extend into the evening. Chadick stated that she believes in the mission of YouthCAN!, in that it is not exclusive, and provides services to all youth. Also being a neighbor, she believes this use will be an excellent use, between Asbell and Leverett Schools, which have the highest free and reduced lunch programs in the City. Commissioner Anthes asked staff about left turn lanes on Sang Avenue and the speed tables present. Glenn Newman (staff engineer) stated he was not aware of any plans for left turn lanes on Sang Avenue. Commissioner Anthes asked staff about the time and hours of operation. Fulcher explained staff was trying to be more open in the conditions of approval and the described activities, to add a level of flexibility, but give some level of the operation of the program. Commissioner Myres stated she supports the programs in this area, and understands the traffic concerns, as she uses Sang Avenue to visit friends. She appreciates the speed tables recently installed. Commissioner Lack stated he was in favor of the endeavor, but wanted to clear up and add definition to a couple of things. Lack asked how many nights per week could the programs be limited, because evening uses would be more intrusive. He asked the applicant if she could establish a certain number of nights per month. Price -Davis stated they would work with the neighborhood to establish something that could function for all involved. Breast cancer patient therapy groups are the primary groups that meet at night, as well as teambuilding. No group ever is present past 9 pm; most are from 5:30 to 7:30 pm. Commissioner Lack asked if six entities use the facility. Price -Davis responded more like 12-15, but they never know when they will use the facility, even yearly. YouthCAN! tries to be responsive to what the public wants. The Planning Commission discussed various options for nights per week, nights per month and limited hours on Sunday. Motion to amend: Planning Commission June 11, 2007 Page 8 of 21 Commissioner Lack made a motion to amend Condition of Approval #2 to limit nightly events to no more than 6 times per month, ending by 9:30 p.m. Additionally, hours of operation shall be limited to 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday -Friday and on Saturday 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. After discussion with Commissioner Graves, the motion was amended to, in the event of special programs, allow the limit of 6 nightly events each month to also include Sunday, but no later than 9:00 P.M. Commissioner Lack made a second motion to include a 6`h Condition of Approval: Clients referred to the facility by a disciplinary program shall be monitored to and from the facility and while at the facility by the referral agency. Commission Myers seconded the amending motion. Upon roll call, the amended motion passed with a vote of 6-0-0. Commissioner Anthes asked staff to explain a citizen's course of action should someone violate the conditions of an approved conditional use permit. Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, gave a brief explanation of the revocation process. Motion: Commissioner Graves made a motion to approve the request with the conditions of approval as amended. Commissioner Cabe seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 6-0-0. Planning Commission June 11, 2007 Page 9 of 21 LSD 07-2594: Large Scale Development (THE VILLAGE AT SHILOH, 519): Submitted by CRAFTON, TULL, SPARKS & ASSOC. for property located at SHILOH DRIVE, APPROXIMATELY 1.2 MILES S OF WEDINGTON DRIVE. The property is zoned RMF -24, MULTI FAMILY - 24 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 18.09 acres. The request is for a residential development with 198 3 -story town home units. Andrew Garner, Senior Planner, gave the staff report. He also discussed the 2-1 Subdivision Committee vote for forwarding to Planning Commission. Garner described the project, 198 condominium multi -family units with a large private street system, front -loaded, and 4 acres of parkland. After the Subdivision Committee, the applicant met with City Engineering staff and moved the driveway 12' to the north and tightened the curb return radius of the subject intersection to help reduce potential traffic conflicts. Staff recommended approval of the project, finding it compliant with the Unified Development Code, with conditions as listed in the staff report. No public comment was received. Steven Beam (applicant) presented the request, discussing the changes that were made to the driveway after meeting with City Engineering Staff. The curb return radius was reduced to 20' to help direct vehicles through the intersection and the east intersection of Road E and Road C was moved 12 feet to the north. The changes made to this intersection since the Subdivision Committee and the low volume of traffic on these private roads would ensure that this design would be a safe scenario. Beam discussed that there are not multi -family design standards, but that the applicant has presented building elevations to the Planning Commission for information purposes. Glenn Newman, Staff Engineer, stated support of the applicant's changes to the intersection. Commissioner Graves gave a report from the Subdivision Committee giving the concerns of one of the members with the design of the intersection that has been discussed. This project would have been approved at Subdivision Committee but for the one traffic safety issue at the intersection cited by Commissioner Ostner. Commissioner Anthes asked the applicant why there are no dumpster locations. Beam replied that this developer typically uses carts on this type of development although the City Solid Waste Division stated that dumpsters are required. Covenants will state that individual trash carts shall be kept in garages. The applicant will petition the City Council for a waiver of the dumpster requirements, and to allow individual cart trash service. Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, confirmed that the applicant may proceed to City Council for a waiver of the dumpster requirements, and that this issue is not under the purview of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Anthes asked staff if City Council does not approve the waiver and dumpsters are required, will staff review the location and screening of such dumpsters? Planning Commission June 11, 2007 Page 10 of 21 Pate confirmed that staff would review the location and screening of dumpsters if they are required. Commissioner Graves stated that the Subdivision Committee agreed that individual carts would be preferred to dumpsters. Motion: Commissioner Graves stated he was in favor of the project at Subdivision Committee, and that hopefully the changes made to the intersection for traffic safety would alleviate the concerns of the one commissioner at the Subdivision Committee. However, since that member is not present at the meeting it cannot be confirmed that his concerns have been addressed. Finding in agreement with staff recommendations and all conditions of approval, Commissioner Graves made a motion to approve LSD 07-2594 with conditions as listed in the staff report. Commissioner Lack seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 6-0-0. Planning Commission June 11, 2007 Page 11 of 21 RZN 07-2602: (ARMAC ENGINEERING, 523): Submitted by ARMAC CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PPLC for property located at 28 S. UNIVERSITY AVENUE. The property is zoned NC, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION and contains approximately 0. 18 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to MSC, Main Street Center. Andrew Garner, Senior Planner, gave the staff report. Garner gave background on the property stating that the City Council denied a rezoning request on the property to R-3 (High Density Residential) in 2000 mainly due to concerns with a historic home on the property. The house was removed from the property when the current owners bought the property. Garner recommended in favor of the rezoning request with the associated Bill of Assurance limiting the use to residential only, finding that allowing multi -family uses on this property would be compatible with surrounding uses, and would provide transition between commercial and multi -family uses to the north and west, and single family residential to the south. Commissioner Anthes asked staff if any other zoning district was considered for the rezoning. Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, discussed that this was in the Downtown Neighborhood Plan and a different zoning district not in one of the Downtown zoning districts in this area would be a spot -zone. No public comment was received. Shelly West (applicant) was present for the application. She stated that under the current zoning requirements only one single family home would be allowed to be constructed on the property. With the surrounding commercial and multi -family zoning development, a single family residences would not be compatible. West described the two duplexes that the applicant is anticipating on constructing on the property, that these units would face Washington Street, and would encompass an 1,100 square foot footprint each. Parking is proposed to be in the rear, with the front of the Victorian -style homes on the street. Commissioner Anthes asked if the driveway would be reviewed under the new regulations being discussed tonight. Jeremy Pate stated yes, if adopted by the City Council. Motion: Commissioner Lack stated agreement with staff s findings that the proposed zoning would provide transition from commercial to single family residential uses to the south with the Bill of Assurance to limit development on the site to residential only. Lack also discussed that the concept for the duplexes is not binding, and for informational purposes, the site plan presented did not appear to have front doors facing Washington Street. Lack made a motion to forward the request to City Council with a recommendation for approval. Commissioner Myres seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 6-0-0. Planning Commission June 11, 2007 Page 12 of 21 RZN 07-2603: (KOOSHESH, 438): Submitted by CARMEN CUBILLO for property located at 956 AND 918 N. 46TH AVENUE. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL - AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 1.59 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to R -O, Residential Office. Andrew Garner, Senior Planner, gave the staff report. Garner discussed staff s findings that the requested zoning could result in some objectionable uses and nuisances depending on the scale, transition and use of the property. Garner stated that the current R -A zoning may not be appropriate given the anticipated growth in this vicinity, however, a straight rezoning does not ensure a compatible development pattern in this pocket of old rural -residential uses surrounded by new development. Staff recommended denial of the rezoning at this time. No public comment was received. Cyrus Kooshesh (applicant) was present for the application. He discussed the history of the property and how it was annexed into the City, and that R -A zoning is not in compliance with the size of the lot or the historical uses on the lot. It was discussed that a silk-screening shop has been on this property for approximately 30 years, but has recently moved out to other areas. He discussed that some of the surrounding neighbors provided letters of support for the requested rezoning, agreeing with the neighbors' letters that professional offices were needed in this area of town. He stated understanding of staffs concerns with the proposed rezoning, and offered a Bill of Assurance to limit development on the property to no more than three buildings, no more than two stories in height, and no more than 2,500 square feet per floor for each building. He noted that the City Fire and Police Departments stated that rezoning would create no adverse impacts. He also stated that he is almost going bankrupt with this property and needs to improve it and continue the non-residential use. Commissioner Cabe asked staff about the status of the Woodstock PZD being proposed across the street. Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, stated that the Woodstock PZD is a large mixed use proposal that has been through the technical plat review meeting, and that there were substantial revisions to the project that are being addressed by the applicant. He stated that he is not sure when it will be re -submitted. Commissioner Anthes asked staff if they had reviewed the Bill of Assurance and if it would change staff s recommendation. Garner responded that he had worked with the applicant and given some suggestions on some of the items offered in the Bill of Assurance. Garner also stated that he had discussed other options with the applicant to continue the historical non-residential use in the garage/shop by applying for a conditional use permit. Commissioner Graves asked staff about this request being a spot -zone, and whether the applicant's Bill of Assurance would negate the spot -zone status. Planning Commission June 11, 2007 Page 13 of 21 Pate responded that this would still be an R -O zoning surrounded by R -A, even with the Bill of Assurance. Mr. Pate also discussed that a policy decision to increase the intensity and density of uses in this area has not yet been made by City Council. The timing for this request seems premature. Kit Williams, City Attorney, added that a spot -zone is generally referring to an area where a proposed zoning could result in conflicting or incompatible land uses with the surrounding area. Commissioner Graves stated he agreed with staff that the timing of the request is premature. As it stands now, completely surrounded by unlike property, he would support staff and vote to deny. Commissioner Anthes stated that she shared the same concern, but hated to take away the applicant's ability to use the property for its historical non-residential uses, and would like to see a conditional use permit application to allow for the existing nonconforming nonresidential uses in the garage/shop on the property to continue. Two options were available: 1) Denial, which would result in waiting one year to resubmit; and 2) tabling or a conditional use permit request. Commissioner Lack agrees that a conditional use permit would be a good option. He also stated that he is inclined to deny the rezoning request with the Bill of Assurance to protect the applicant from unnecessarily limiting the use and value of his property in the future. If the surrounding zoning and uses change in the future, such as proposed with the Woodstock PZD, a more intense zoning on this property may be encouraged. He would like to table this item. Commissioner Anthes asked for the applicant's input. It may be better to table to a date specific to see if surrounding property has been rezoned after some period of time. Kooshesh stated that, yes, he would be willing to table the item. He asked if the conditional use permit was a different application. He also asked if tabling the item for six months was appropriate. Commissioner Graves asked staff that if this rezoning is denied, may the applicant ask for a different zoning at any time, and may a conditional use permit be applied for at any time? Pate responded that a conditional use permit may be submitted now, even under the existing zoning. Motion: Commissioner Lack made a motion to table the item until the applicant deems it appropriate to bring the item back before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Myres seconded the motion, and asked if the tabling should be for a specific time period. Commissioner Lack responded that he is okay with the item being tabled indefinitely and the applicant bring back the item at his discretion. Planning Commission June 11, 2007 Page 14 of 21 Williams answered a question from the commission that usually when an item is tabled indefinitely by the City Council it is pulled off of any docket at the end of the calendar year. However, he is not sure how long an item may be tabled indefinitely by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Anthes clarified for the applicant that tabling of this item does not prohibit an application for a conditional use permit or a different re -zoning request. Upon roll call, the motion to table indefinitely, allowing the applicant to bring it back as he saw fit, passed with a vote of 6-0-0. Planning Commission June 11, 2007 Page 15 of 21 ADM 07-2577: (DOWNTOWN DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT (DDOD)) Submitted by Long Range Planning Staff an ordinance creating a Downtown Design Overlay District with a set of architectural standards for all new construction in the DDOD. Leif Olson, Long Range Planner, gave the staff report which reviewed the process for bringing these standards forward. In 2004, the City Council adopted the Downtown Master Plan. The Chair of the Planning Commission appointed a committee of commissioners, designers and architects to produce the draft downtown architectural design guidelines. In the packet there are four drafts. The original Dover Kohl and Partners Draft (April 2004), the committee's draft, the mark-up draft by the City Attorney, and the Planning Division's recommendation draft. Olson advised that staff will develop language, a manual and diagrams to go along with the code, once it is finalized and adopted. It is staff's recommendation that the planning commission review and discuss this draft this evening. Commissioner Lack thanked Commissioner Anthes for the selection of the committee. He thought the committee was diverse and that none came away with everything that they wanted to see in the draft, but there was a compromise and consensus to forward the draft to the Planning Commission. He also stated that he thought this was calibrated to the region, and thanked planning staff for sticking with the committee, and also thought the proposed draft was manageable and clear. No public comment was received. Commissioner Lack stated he has some questions about various sections of the overall draft, and would go through them line by line. He asked why the non -conforming structure exemption was taken out. Olson stated that staff thought if an act of God happened that we would want to see what was rebuilt meet the design standards. The City Council could come up with a list of structures to exempt, as they did with the downtown zoning code, if necessary. Kit Williams, City Attorney, stated he was in favor of a grandfather exemption clause in the downtown zoning code, that it is a policy decision. Commissioner Lack asked why the appeal is not in the UDC chapter for appeals. Olson stated that this draft was presented to provide context for definitions and appeals; there would be some redundancy in the code. Williams stated that we need to stick with the UDC format and show definitions in the definitions sections and appeals in the appeals section. Commissioner Lack asked why staff removed the enclosed porch section from the committee's recommended draft. Olson stated that staff wanted to allow screened porches. Planning Commission June 11, 2007 Page 16 of 21 Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, stated that in Washington/Willow neighborhood and others within the City there are home owners that screen in and put in removable windows during certain times of the year, due to the weather in Arkansas. Commissioner Lack thought that screened porches may be appropriate and saw the open porch as a building setback issue. Striking "open" would allow the building of a room. Is screening not considered an open structure? He further stated he had concerns about exposed cell towers being stricken from the items not allowed in side and rear yards. Olson stated staff didn't see these issues as an issue, in the bigger picture. Commissioner Lack stated these items are a product of trying to create a neat and tidy downtown urban space; from personal experience, no urban space is neat and tidy. Olson stated that cell phone towers are regulated in another section; prohibition of cell towers could be a problem altogether. Kit Williams stated the Planning Commission could not prohibit cell towers, but this section could be placed in the conditional use section to add stealth design standards. Commissioner Lack wanted to know why false grids/mullions for windows was removed by staff, his suspicion is because of enforcing it would be a problem. Olson explained that staff thought is would be very difficult to administer. Commissioner Lack requested even so, he requested that it stay in the code. He stated the parking garage section was a good addition to the code but had concerns making it Citywide with an ordinance that was designed for the downtown. James Graves, Planning Commissioner, clarified that references to the DMP code need to be removed from the parking garage section, if it remains city-wide. Jill Anthes, Planning Commissioner, asked if including this in the DMP architectural design standards would delay the process. The Planning Commission discussed if the parking garage regulations should be left in with the DMP architectural design standards or stand alone, and decided it should be left in, with only the downtown referenced. Commissioner Myres stated she was not concerned with the exemptions coming out. She also questioned why staff required window sills and thought you could have mid century type windows without sills. Commissioner Lack stated that it was a compromise to leave in all material types. Planning Commission June 11, 2007 Page 17 of 21 Pate reminded the Planning Commission that the intent is to develop a design code that allows development "as -of- right" when it complies with the code and other designs would come before the Commission. Commissioner Myres thanked Mr. Pate for reminding the commission that this was not stating everything must meet this code. Commissioner Cabe asked why there were standards for window trim size. Olson stated that the committee felt it was necessary to place dimensional requirements that were appropriate for the area. He stated that there are some standard dimensions that "look" appropriate when you trim a window. Also, that it is seldom for an individual to use oversized trim. Commissioner Cabe stated he had concerns regarding the inoperable shutters and undersized shutters. He also asked to clarify why staff has lists that allow almost everything and lists that prohibit certain things. Olson stated it goes back to the purpose statement and goals for functional architecture. With regard to the lists of permitted items, it is easier than making a larger list of prohibited items and makes more sense. Commissioner Bryant stated that we will see more recycled materials in the future and may become an issue that will have to be reviewed. She also asked about the low E coating and window tinting. Commissioner Lack stated that this issue of window glazing and tinting will come up and that Kit Williams brought up the issue of stained glass. He spoke about the importance of have being able to see through the windows and having "openness" and the need to balance energy efficiency and design for accent. He also stated that he thought the front porch and exposed cell towers should be left in the ordinance. Commissioner Graves stated that keeping in mind these are approved administratively, the front porch issue is important enough to keep in. He is not concerned about screening. H understands not wanting to regulate some things, but having a trash dumpster in the front yard seems suspect. Add back in the prohibition of exposed cell phone towers doesn't prohibit cellular antennas, but makes it not the norm in this area. Commissioner Anthes stated it sounds like everyone is in agreement. Why can't we vote on this tonight? Olson stated you can vote on this tonight. Commissioner Anthes asked why staff included the disclaimer on the building code. Planning Commission June 11, 2007 Page 18 of 21 Olson stated that there may be building code requirements that supercede this criteria when certain elements encroach into the right-of-way. Williams went through several items of concern. He asked to clarify the store front section of the ordinance and if applied to all sides of the building. He also stated that leaving the windows un - shuttered at night was not a zoning issue, but more operational. The Commission should remove the reference to commercial design standards, and preferred a variance section to be added, removing the "waiver" language. Reasons for justification of a variance should be included, and should be incorporated into the variance chapter. The Planning Commission had additional discussion to clarify the commercial design standards section and the need to use the term variance instead of waiver. Williams recommended that staff develop criteria for granting a variance from this section and asked why the committee recommended the 25% opaque requirement for fences and pointed out that it didn't work for metal fences. Commissioner Anthes asked the commission to comment on each page of the proposed ordinance. There was discussion about the purpose statement and if it needed to be more descriptive. Tim Conklin, Planning and Development Management Director, informed the commission that he had received a comment that the prohibition of embossed raised simulated wood grain material and that smooth material like "hardy board" has an increased cost and was not readily available at building supply stores. Commissioner Lack stated that the market would catch up with the demand for smooth materials overtime as these standards are implemented. Commissioner Anthes stated that all of the window requirements should be left in the proposed ordinance. Williams asked that the metal fence requirement be excluded from the 25% opaque requirement. Commissioner Graves recommended language to clarify the fence requirement, removing certain parts of the code. Commissioner Lack and staff discussed adding "principal fagade" language to the requirements for glass on the first or ground floor. An amendment was made to add this so that the intent is for those facades facing public streets (principal facades) must meet the requirements. The Planning Commission discussed all sections of the code that staff recommended amending, making amendments as desired. These amendments have been noted and are incorporated in the draft forwarded to the Ordinance Review Committee. Planning Commission June 11, 2007 Page 19 of 21 Commissioner Anthes recommended that Exhibit C be kept as originally presented by the committee. Motion: Commissioner Lack made a motion to forward the item with a recommendation of approval to the City Council with the recommended amendments. Commissioner Myres seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 6-0-0. Planning Commission June 11, 2007 Page 20 of 21 ADM 07-2589: (CH. 172, PARKING AND LOADING) amendments to the Unified Development Code for driveway widths into parking lots and new regulations for parking located in the front yard of residential dwelling units. Tim Conklin, Planning and Development Management Director, gave the staff report and presentation. He described the amendments and new standard regulations for 8 or less, 9 or more, and parking for 4 or less. Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, spoke for Jury Still, a citizen, citing his concern for those that own more than one vehicle or who have antique vehicles and like to have them displayed. Commissioner Myres questioned impermeable surfaces for 18' feet into the property, and whether other surfaces could be used. The Planning Commission discussed paving surfaces, with the result that 18 feet into the property line, a driveway needed to be a solid surface, so that mud, dirt and rocks did not get on the sidewalk or on the streets and into the stormwater systems. Commissioner Graves asked if this ordinance still allowed parking on the street? Conklin advised yes. Commissioner Graves asked about a waiver or variance. We need to treat the sections the same. He referenced the variance chapter that applies in each section. Commissioner Anthes stated she appreciated the graphics and asked if they will be included in the ordinance or manual? Conklin stated the manual would be preferred. Commissioner Anthes asked if graphics would be made available to the applicants. Tim Conklin stated yes. Commissioner Lack asked about Exhibit B should the <less than 10' per drive lane" be made the same in the chart and the text? Just below that, b-2 .... the use of landscape islands to discourage cut - through traffic, is there a spacing requirement. Staff discussed this requirement, and that the Landscape Chapter actually regulates it more strictly, thus no new spacing requirements are needed. Commissioner Graves suggested perhaps this should just reference Ch. 177, then, to make if clear. Commissioner Lack asked if the width of curb cuts onto state highways conflicted with those proposed. Planning Commission June 11, 2007 Page 21 of 21 Conklin discussed collector and arterial curb cuts and advised that it has been addressed Motion: Commissioner Cabe made a motion to forward the item to the City Council with a recommendation of approval. Commissioner Myres seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 6-0-0. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Commissioner Anthes announced that a new member may be joining the Planning Commission on June 25, and requested a volunteer to substitute for that person's Subdivision Committee position. Anthes also noted the relocation of the July 09 Planning Commission meeting to the District Court Room. Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, announced the Subdivision Committee meeting of Thursday, June 28 would be also be relocated, to Room 111. All business being concluded, the meeting adjourned at 9.10 PM.