PLANNING
COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
MINUTES OF MEETING MAY 16, 2007
CALL TO ORDER:
Vice-Chairman called the meeting to order
at 6:30 p.m.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:
Pete Griffin, Roger Yoder, Ken Kraus, Don Bergwall, Alan Seymour.
John Cunningham and Pat Soller-
absent.
OTHERS PRESENT:
Greg DeLong
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
Review Chapter 1135
Mr. Bergwall stated
when he reviewed this chapter he found it hard to review without looking also
at chapter 1137. I took out a sheet
when we were redoing chapter 1137 for lot sizes and updated. The items in red are the items that stuck out
to me. For example in R-1 we have a
density of 3.5 but when you look at the way it flows, maybe it should be
3. When you get to R-4 and R-5, why are
they both at 8 units per acre?
Mr. Yoder stated as he was reading through
this chapter he was having the questions as to why some of the districts were
created given the fact that they are so closely related to others and why they
were worded the way they were.
Mr. Kraus stated if we are not clear of the
purpose or the intent of the district before we get into the specific
regulations then we have a chance to have a hodge-podge. He stated he could argue that he doesn’t
think there should be any reference to maximum density.
Mr. Yoder asked why. Mr. Kraus stated because it falls out in the
measurements and the lot sizes spelled out in chapter 1137.
Mr. Bergwall stated
we have had developers use that as a lever.
We have had people come in and say we can have 4 per acre and we are
only proposing 2.8 per acre. Using it
like it is a benefit.
Mr. Bergwall stated
if we were starting with a clean slate it would be easy to go in and change all
of them, but it would probably create all sorts of confusion with current plats
if we changed the current districts now.
Mr.
DeLong stated he is hesitant to change any lot sizes
at all. When the R-2 was changed before,
it created a nightmare for staff. We
have lots in
Mr. Kraus stated every time you change the
zoning requirements; you create a bunch of legal but non-conforming lots. It is my suggestion that if you are going to
change lot sizes, you do it as a new zoning district.
Mr. Yoder stated he doesn’t think the idea is
to burden administration, so we need to come up will a solution.
Mr. Bergwall asked
if there was a way to create a reference guide that says if you are in this
area, these are your regulations. Where
we need to balance is, you are stating when we make any changes to the lot
sizes it becomes a nightmare for you and I would say we need to figure out how
to manage dealing with that because now and going into the future we need to
make changes.
Mr. DeLong stated
most communities will not touch setbacks.
If they want to make changes they start with a new district. You don’t want to create a bunch of
non-conforming lots.
Mr. Bergwall stated
he doesn’t understand that reference that you make non conforming lots.
Mr. DeLong stated
it happened with
Mr. Kraus stated the lots out there were
required to have a 65 ft. lot when platted and now the requirement is 70 ft. so
they do not conform to the current standards.
Mr. Bergwall stated
he understands they don’t meet the current requirements but I don’t understand
that they are non-conforming.
Mr. Kraus stated what you are saying is
correct and that is why they are legal non conforming lots. They were legal at the time they built the
house and they are non-conforming because they don’t conform to the current
regulations.
Mr. Bergwall stated
he would contend that there are probably lots all over the city with this
issue. We have to figure out how to deal
with that rather than say we can’t change anything.
Mr. DeLong stated
the easiest way to deal with it is to create a new zoning district instead of
changing numbers.
Mr. Kraus stated he would suggest that there
be a new zoning district created when the requirements are changed.
Mr. Bergwall asked
if in 1135.01 are there any comments.
Mr. DeLong stated
once the conversion of the SIC code to the NACIS code b and c will have to be
changed.
Mr. Bergwall stated
he finds it interesting that onsite sewer and water facilities are permitted or
in other areas it talks about centralized water and sewer facilities are
required. For example, when Myron Gallogly came in for the rezoning on the lot in front of
Walker Meadows, do those lots have access to the utilities? He stated he remembered looking at a house on
Boerger Rd. services were available to the houses
across the street but not on this side and I was told that in a couple of years
we may have to tap in to services. So do
we really need these statements in this section?
Mr. DeLong asked if
it is needed at all.
Mr. Kraus stated he can understand that it
shouldn’t be in this area, but it needs to be in the subdivision
regulations.
Mr. Kraus asked the commission to look at the
AR and ER regulations. Unless I’m
missing something, the AR provides what the ER does.
Mr. Griffin stated the ER is more restrictive
than AR. Mr. Yoder asked if we even have
any ER. Mr. DeLong
stated no. Mr. Griffin stated it was
created several years ago because we were trying to allow for more
diversification of housing types and parcel sizes and we had nothing other than
R-1.
Mr. Bergwall stated
the ER has the potential to contain the urban sprawl and depending on the lot
size, you can’t put an on site sewer on less than an acre and a half.
Mr. Griffin stated the ER in my judgment,
even though we are not using it now there may come a time when a developer may
want large lots.
Mr. Kraus asked if it could be done through a
PUD. Mr. Bergwall
stated it could but shouldn’t be forced to.
Mr. Yoder stated my impression of this then
is the intent is to attract more upscale development.
Mr.
Griffin stated he had a personal reason for this. I live in an area that I didn’t want to see
developed as R-1 or R-2.
Mr. Bergwall stated
back to AR are there any other corrections or comments on that.
Mr. Kraus stated if we are going to keep ER,
which I have concerns about, then something needs to be with very low density
use, isolated residential development, we need to be clearer on what we mean on
that. What does isolated residential
development mean? Can someone do an ER
or is it a single house on a single lot and the next house is a mile down the
road.
Mr. Bergwall stated
if someone has say, 20 acres, they can say I don’t want to mess with zoning and
divide it into 2 acre or 5 acre plots, put in a road and not have to get
rezoned and everyone can have onsite utilities.
If there is a situation where you have the city utilities then ER would
fit.
Mr. Kraus asked why in either case, why
wouldn’t they be able to go through a PUD.
Mr. Bergwall stated a developer may not want
to go through a PUD. Mr. Kraus stated
they may not, but is the city going to make it that easy for them or are we
going to have input on what is going on inside of the city limits.
Mr. Bergwall stated
the question is, going back to .02, it is generally agreed upon that we need an
AR district is there any of the wording that needs changed. Mr. Kraus brought up earlier that we may need
to take out the gross acreage out.
Mr. Yoder stated he doesn’t have any issues
with that because it is listed in 1137.
Mr. Bergwall stated
in a sense it is. A question I would ask
is the PUD; under the new term is an overlay to a district. Mr. Kraus stated no, it is a stand alone
district. Mr. Bergwall
asked Mr. DeLong what his thoughts are on it.
Mr. DeLong stated
he likes them in there. In 1137 that is
a minimum requirement, this tells them what you are expecting.
Mr. Kraus stated then the verbiage needs to
be changed from should to shall.
Mr. Griffin asked Mr. DeLong
if the language should be left as is.
Mr. DeLong stated he likes it. Mr. Griffin stated what he doesn’t like is
that it is not precise. If you get into
the SR which says you shouldn’t exceed 2 dwellings per acre, then you look at
1137 and the lot size is 20,000 which exceed 2 per acre.
Mr. Kraus stated if there is going to be a
number in 1135 it needs to be the right number.
He stated he would opt for leaving 1137 alone and let it determine the
density.
Mr. Bergwall stated
the problem he had with doing that is what you don’t know is how the project
will lay out. He stated he doesn’t mind
if it is used as a guide and not say it shall or should not exceed x number of
units.
Mr. DeLong stated
he thinks it needs to be there. This is
the intent and purpose but it could be more generalized.
Mr. Kraus stated he would like to put in at
the end of 1135.02 a phrase that says see 1137.10 for specific zoning
requirements.
Discussion held on the wording.
Mr. Bergwall stated
the next item is 1135.021, ER. Mr. Kraus
stated he doesn’t see the need for it.
Mr. Griffin stated he would rather have it in
case we need it. Mr. Kraus stated he
would rather the developer come in with a PUD.
Mr. Yoder asked can’t a developer accomplish
the same things they would under an ER by using AR or SR. Mr. Griffin stated we would have to change
the permitted uses in the AR district if they were to use it.
Mr. DeLong stated
this might be one of the cases when once we look at the new NACIS code, we may
be coming back to this section and making the decision as to whether it is
needed or not.
Mr. Bergwall stated
he likes the idea that ER would not generally have farm like stuff next to
it. What is the drawback in leaving ER
in?
Mr. Kraus stated there is probably no real
drawback, but if it is not being used, why have it.
Mr. Bergwall stated
the next district is SR. Mr. Kraus asked
why parkland is mentioned. What does customary supporting residential facilities mean? He stated he would put a period after single
family homes.
Mr. Bergwall asked
why SR does not have a statement regarding water and sewer when AR and ER
do. Discussion held.
Discussion held regarding putting centralized
water and sewer facilities are required under SR. Commission decided to delete it.
Mr. Bergwall stated
we are moving onto 1135.03, R-1. Mr.
Kraus stated the only change he would suggest would be the density
question. Mr. DeLong
stated he would probably use the language they decided on throughout the rest
of the districts. It would state “The
purpose of this district is to establish single family/multi-family at a
density of xxx per acres….”
Mr. Bergwall stated
he would like to change the density from 3.5 to 3 since the commission decided
to change it to general verbiage.
Mr. Bergwall stated
R-2 is going to be basically the same thing except the sentence which states
…permit low density multi-family dwellings (R-4) as a conditional use… Does it need to be specified in this area?
Mr. Kraus stated he thinks it is a valid
intent statement. A developer should be
able to look at this and know that they shouldn’t ask for it in R-1 but in R-2
they can.
Mr. Bergwall stated
in R-3, does everyone like the statement that says zoning large tracts of land
in this district should be avoided.
Mr. Yoder asked what “large” was. He stated he thinks it needs to be taken out.
Mr. Kraus stated he has another question
regarding the statement … intended to meet the special housing needs of a
certain segment of the community, specifically, lower income or elderly. Commission agreed to take it out.
Commission also agreed to take out the
sentence regarding the “large tract of land”.
Mr. Yoder stated also in the R-3 language it
states … this district is also designed to permit low density multi-family
dwellings as a conditional use…, is it needed.
Commission decided it is the same sinter as in R-2 and left it in.
Mr. Seymour stated in regards to the
statement in R-2 and R-3 which states it permits low density multi-family
dwellings as conditional uses. He stated
it may be more appropriate for R-3 and less for R-2.
Mr. Bergwall stated
it does make sense for some of the large older homes in the R-2 districts, to
split some of them into apartments.
Mr. DeLong stated
R-2 and R-3 is limited to 2 units under 1137.
Mr.
Bergwall stated moving on into R-4 and R-5; he
questions why they are both 8 units per acre.
He stated he would make R-4 six units per acre. It seems to me low density vs. high density
should have fewer units per acre.
Mr. Kraus stated the numbers used to be 8 and
sixteen.
Discussion held regarding the difference
between R-4 and R-5 and where R-5 is in town.
Mr. Kraus stated he thinks R-5 needs to be at
least 12 units per acre. Mr. Seymour
stated he is opposed to increasing the density in the R-5 district. Mr. Kraus stated then we have a zoning
district that we don’t need and a sector of our housing element that we are not
meeting.
Mr. Griffin stated he thinks it is already
met. Mr. Kraus stated there are waiting
lists for these types of units. Mr.
Griffin stated perhaps we don’t want anymore.
Mr. Yoder asked is that to say that there
will be no more R-5 zoning as the city grows.
Discussion on intent of 1105.13 (b)
Mr. DeLong stated
that the issue that was brought up, (b) was not changed. He stated if you read (a) and (b) there is
actually a conflict. He stated he does
not feel (b) is needed.
Mr. Bergwall stated
when he read this, he could read it to say “all phases occurring after the
original approval period…” meaning that the preliminary plat had been approved
and the phases were each coming forth, one every 12 months. Then you got past the original approval
period then they shall conform to the current zoning standards at the time the
final plats for these phases are submitted.
In other words, if
Mr. Kraus stated if a development that is
phased does not bring in a phase every 12 months; they would have to update
their preliminary plat to conform to the current regulations, if it doesn’t
already.
Mr. Bergwall stated
the logic is if you want to make a big commitment and you follow your plan,
even though the economy has changed, you should benefit from it.
Mr. Griffin asked if that is what the code
says. If not it needs changed.
Mr. DeLong stated
under 1105.12 it talks about approval period.
Under (b) it states the approval of the Planning Commission shall be
null and void for all undeveloped as shown on the preliminary plat… Then it
goes on to talk about the time frame. I
think (b) under 1105.13 is unnecessary.
Mr. Bergwall stated
he thinks that 1105.13 (b) was added to reiterate 1105.12 (b). Mr. Kraus stated if that is the case it is
worded very poorly.
Mr. Seymour stated the reason we did it is
because 1105.12 is under preliminary plat and 1105.13 is under final plat.
Mr. Kraus stated the language, if we are
going to keep it, needs to be clearer.
He stated he thinks what they want is said in 1105.12 (a).
Mr. Bergwall stated
maybe the 1105.13 (b) just needs to be moved up to 1105.12 (b).
Mr. DeLong stated
he will reword it and put it under 1105.12.
ADJOURNMENT:
Meeting was adjourned.