PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
MINUTES OF
MEETING
CALL TO ORDER:
The Chairman called the meeting to order
at 7:28 p.m.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Roger Yoder, John Cunningham, Ken Kraus,
Don Bergwall. Alan Seymour and Pete Griffin- absent. 1
vacancy.
OTHERS PRESENT: None
DISCUSSION
ITEMS:
Code
Changes – replacing Shade Tree Commission and Architectural Review Board
throughout the code
Mr.
Kraus stated in 1105.09, number six, states detailed landscape plan recommended
by the Shade Tree Commission. He
stated that because we are dealing with subdivisions and street trees not site
trees, it should be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. With residential all we deal with is street trees.
If it is a commercial development, like Coleman’s Crossing, the street trees are what we would deal with. When the site is developed, the Design
Review Board gets into the site landscaping and trees.
Mr.
Bergwall stated he agrees this is listed under information for Preliminary Plat
and therefore should be Planning Commission not Design
Review.
Mr.
Kraus stated number six should state, …. Planning and
Zoning to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. Delete recommended.
Mr.
Kraus stated in 1109.18 it should also state Planning Commission since it is in
the subdivision regulations.
Commission agreed.
In
1139.23 (b), Mr. Kraus stated he doesn’t know who should deal with it. Mr. Cunningham asked if it could be the
responsibility of the zoning inspector.
Mr.
Bergwall stated it is going to depend on when the pump stations are put in. If it is put in as part of a
development, like in the Oaks, it will be part of the plat and Planning
Commission would take care of it.
If it is something the City adds then it should be handled through the
administration, unless there is going to be a structure built then it would go
through Design Review.
Discussion
held on who should be responsible for it.
Mr.
Kraus stated because this falls within the zoning code and not the Design Review
chapter it should be the responsibility of the Planning Commission. Mr. Cunningham stated by default it is
Planning Commission.
Mr.
Kraus stated in 1142.04 they can go through Design Review. Commission agreed.
Mr.
Kraus stated with 1143.15 (a), Variances, it needs to be Design Review. Commission agreed.
Mr.
Kraus stated in 1143.15 (b) Architectural Review Board should be deleted. Commission agreed.
Mr.
Kraus stated in 1143.20, there is a list that lists Architectural Review
Board. Commission doesn’t know
why.
Commission
asked administrative staff to take a look at it.
Commission
asked that these changes be made and it be placed on the agenda for the July
meeting.
General
Issues
Mr.
Kraus stated we have received POD information and information on commercial
subdivision signage.
Mr.
Bergwall stated on the POD information received, I didn’t find many that were
good examples. We need to figure
out what we want out of it.
Mr.
Yoder stated bits and pieces of each were good, and would have to be complied to
get what we are after.
Mr.
Bergwall asked are we going to distinguish between what is actually a POD vs. a
dumpster sitting in someone’s front driveway while they are having renovation
work done.
Mr.
Cunningham stated there needs to be time limits on the dumpsters as well.
Mr.
Bergwall stated we need to spell out the basic things we want protection for and
then write something up.
Mr.
Yoder stated the dumpsters are a separate issue. We were really looking for regulations
on POD’s.
Mr.
Kraus stated it may be a matter of definition.
Mr.
Bergwall stated the one he thought was closest to being okay was the one from
Mr.
Yoder stated he thinks this needs to be assigned to a commission member to come
up with some recommended language.
Mr.
Cunningham stated the next item was commercial park signage. He stated he liked what Mr. Kraus
wrote.
Mr.
Kraus stated Mrs. McCoy had a comment about permitting signage for a shopping
center offsite. He stated to make
sure things are clear there needs to be a definition of a commercial park. He stated he thinks it is something that
has to go through the subdivision process.
It is not a shopping center.
Mr.
Bergwall stated he is not sure you need a sign at each vehicular access. Mr. Kraus asked what about Coleman’s
Crossing.
Mr. Bergwall stated we may want to consider putting something in that
says you can have more than one if the entrances are more than XXX ft.
apart. If you are talking about
signs that are 25 ft. tall, and if they are 500’ to 600’ apart, do you need more
than one. Mr. Cunningham stated
no.
Mr.
Kraus stated what we should do is provide some standard code with reasonable
limitations for the vehicular entrances.
If they want to have additional signage say along the freeway, let them
go to BZA,
Mr.
Kraus stated it will state one for each primary access. Mr. Yoder asked if Coleman’s Crossing
would qualify for two primary vehicular entrances. Mr. Kraus stated yes. City Gate would have one primary
vehicular access.
Mr.
Kraus stated there is something in the code under industrial park identification
signs that states no other free standing identification sign in the development
shall be located within 100’ of the road or street on which the industrial park
has vehicular access. He stated
when looking at a commercial park, once the Coleman’s Crossing sign went up it
prohibits any signs along
Mr.
Cunningham stated Applebees is not part of the
Coleman’s Crossing development. Mr.
Yoder stated no, it’s not.
Mr.
Bergwall stated he does not mind the 100’ distance.
Mr.
Kraus stated don’t forget these signs have to be outside the road
right-of-way.
Mr.
Kraus stated he will come up with a definition of commercial park and also one
for industrial park. He stated he
will change it to say one for each primary entrance
INDIVIDUAL
COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS:
Alan
Seymour
Ken
Kraus
Don
Bergwall
Pete
Griffin
Roger
Yoder
John
Cunningham
ADJOURNMENT: