title
Minutes for the MAPC meeting on August 22, 2006.
body
Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Minutes, August 22, 2006
Commissioners absent: Harpole, Collins, Moore
Staff present: Spriggs, White
1. Text Amendments.
City planner stated that he made minor changes since the August 8, 2006, meeting. He has corrected the definition of accessory structure and taken out the language that stated that a separate entrance was needed. The definition of density was altered to not include public street right-of-way in that calculation.
Also retained the agriculture section as a designation however we have removed the R-0 designation. We went from 5 acre lots in AG-1 to 1 acre lot in the RS-1 designation. The current zones on our zoning maps will be maintained as is and no new applications will be allowed to be applied for or granted and they will be protected by the grandfathering clause. We will retain a current copy of the zoning resolution as it exists to date and they will be guided by those guidelines. There will be no time period for development for these properties but there will be a design review for the current zoning.
The design review board will be a board that we will ask City Council to appoint to review these matters. City planner suggests that we use this board for any commercial and multi-family structures for this board. For this board, most likely architects, home builders, etc.
C-5 district has been tweaked and will now be called CR-1, mixed use developments, for example, apartments above commercial. There is a density table on page 16 of the handout for the CR-1 district. There was also some concern over the 5,000 sq. ft. cap and the commission made the decision to raise that to 20% of the lot size so that larger lots can have larger buildings. Commissioners discussed the size of buildings and rent costs and parking regarding residential that may be in the same building. This section will be adjacent to residential so we didn’t want this district to be too intense. C-3 is going to be left alone so we wanted to put some guidelines on the CR-1. Commissioners discussed the percentage of building size and whether that should be increased from 20%. Commissioners feel that as long as this is open to a variance that the 20% will be okay to begin with. City planner suggests that for calculating density at 3,600 sq. ft. which is the same formula that we use now. Lot sizes were discussed regarding the minimum depths and widths. City planner stated that maximum heights have not been changed.
City planner asked if anyone had any problems with allowable uses in the different zonings. Residential is left as a conditional use in the Industrial districts. Mr. Caldwell asked about the definition of conditional use. City planner stated that the conditional uses are generally not uses that are permitted in the district but that the committee can allow the conditional uses. City planner also stated that the MAPC may want to consider putting conditional uses on the Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA) since they can take a considerable amount of time and they are usually petty.
Off-premise signage has had no changes.
Gated communities were considered with north, south, east and west access and Mr. Caldwell feels that perhaps these should be conditional use. Dr. Beadles stated that there is not a requirement to have north, south, east and west access but that it makes it easier for the people. There have been several instances where the subdivisions don’t want to connect due to lot size differences and not wanting people to drive through the subdivisions.
Residential tables were also discussed. RS-1 has some industrial conditional uses that commissioners don’t feel those would be conducive to residential areas. City planner stated that he feels the gravel mine because it is so close to cut and fill, but the other industrial uses really could be removed. Commissioners feel that they should leave it in AG district but take these industrial conditional uses out of the Residential districts.
Lot widths were left off last time and city planner stated that he tried to add them in with the prior uses to coordinate to the new zoning uses. RS-2, Mr. Caldwell felt that 20 ft. side setbacks were too large. He feels that would restrict the size of the home. Mr. Caldwell also felt that the front should be 30 ft. and that is fine. Also, in RS-3 he felt that the 15 ft. side setbacks were too large as well. RS-5 is the closest thing to R-1 that we have. The setbacks are smaller in the RS-5 than in present day R-1. Mr. Day felt that RS-3 should be 10 ft. side setback and RS-2 should be 15 ft.
RS-2 side setback to 15 ft, city planner stated that he feels that you should leave the front setback at 35 ft. for this RS-2.
RS-5 the front setback should be 25 ft. and RS-6 the front setback should be left at 20 ft.
RS-6 should have 65 ft. minimum lot width. Side setbacks were discussed the side setback of 10 ft. City planner stated that you could try to go with 10 ft. to one side and 5 ft. to the other. But keep the 15 ft side setbacks for a combination of both sides. That would be beneficial if you wanted a driveway to the back of the house down one side. It is a 15 ft. combined side setback. It will meet fire codes if the side setbacks are done as 10 ft./5 ft.
In RMH Districts there are no minimum lot widths, since we rarely get mobile home parks. There were no standards in the current code.
Mr. Day stated that he agrees with non-permitted uses #B where no industrial activities be allowed in the RS district.
City planner stated that preliminary and final plats regarding the number of days being specified as calendar days and it should be changed to working days. Change to 10 working days.
Mr. Day stated that he thought we should ask for adjacent subdivisions and ties to be put into the code. An overall plan with adjacent with nearest adjacent subdivisions to be added to the checklist as a requirement. Something with a minimum scale so that it isn’t tiny.
PUD will be discussed in an additional meeting that will only discuss PUD. Date to be set in the MAPC Meeting on September 12, 2006.
Meeting is adjourned.