Planning Commission

Minutes of the Millcreek Planning Commission June 17, 2020 5:00 p.m. Regular Meeting The Planning Cornrnission of Millcreek, Utah, met in a regular public meeting on Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at City Hall, located at 3330 S. 1300 E., Millcreek, UT 84106. The meeting was conducted electronically per Millcreek State of Local Emergency Directive No. 2 of 2020 and live streamed via the City's website with an option for online public comment. PRESENT: Commissioners City Staff Shawn LaMar, Chair John Brems, City Attorney Russ Booth, Vice Chair (electronic) Elyse Sullivan, City Recorder David Allen (electronic) Francis Lilly, Plaru'iing and Zoning Director Scott Claerhout (electronic) Robert May, Planner Fred Healey (absent) Erin O'Kelley, Planner Mark Mumford (electronic) Samah Safiullah, Planner Victoria Reid (electronic) Jared Bowling, IT/Facilities Manager Skye Sieber Jordan Hatch, Information Center Manager Tom Stephens Attendees: Mayor Jeff Silvestrini, Council Member Dwight Marchant, Adam Von Maack, Wayne Johnson, Brad Wagstaff (electronic), McKay Quinn (electronic), Brandon Wagstaff (electronic), Kyle Killan (electronic), Whitney Sansom (electronic), Chad Rawlins (electronic), Ryan S. (electronic), Dan Maack (electronic), David Baird (electronic), and Rachel Lambert (electronic). REGULAR MEETING - 5:00 p.m. TIME COMMENCED: 5:02 p.m. Chair LaMar called the meeting to order, explained the instructions for the electronic meeting, and read a description explaining the duties of the Planning Commission. He said there were two Planning Commissioner vacancies and the deadline for applying was June 19, 2020. He said Commissioner Mumford and Claerhout's terms would end at the end of June. 1. Public Hearings 1.1 Consideration of ZM-20-005, Rezone from R-1-6 to R-1-5 Subject to a Development Agreement for Property Location: 2910 S. 800 E. Applicant: Sancus Development LLC Planner: Robert May Millcreek Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 17 June 2020 Page 2 of 12 Robert May said the subject property was two parcels and the rezone would accommodate a 6-lot subdivision with an existing home on one of the Iots. The property and surrounding area were designated as Neighborhood 1 in the General Plan which allows for a range of density between 1-6 dwelling units per acre. Staff found that maintaining the R-1-5 zone met the single-family neighborhood feel and that the addition of 5 more units would not negatively impact the immediate area. He showed the Commission pictures of the property and a map of the surrounding non-confonning lots. Nineteen of the 29 surrounding parcels in the R-1-6 zone were recognized as nonconforming either due to the lack of area, width, or both. The average area was 7,654 square feet and the average width was 53 feet. He said a lot of the same requirements for the new zone still applied from the cui'rent zone except the lot width, which could be 25 feet at a minimum, and the existing home would be conforming on the new lot. He showed the Commission a concept site plan. May said the Millcreek Community Council, at their meeting on June 2, recornrnended approval of the proposed rezone that included a development agreement and that the final plans meet the minimum requirements and setbacks of the R-1-5 zone and Residential Compatibility Overlay Zone (RCOZ). The applicant held an informal neighborhood virtual meeting on May 26 and a surnrnary of that meeting could be found in the staff report. He said staff had one resident inquire about fencing along the private road because they were concerned about traffic noise and lights affecting their property. Staff found that the R-1-5 zone with the RCOZ restrictions was compatible with the neighborhood, that the R-1-5 zone would not negatively impact the immediate area, that the rezone with a development agreement would secure a positive project, and that the development agreement should include requirements not already enforced by code such as specific building materials, a specific architectural design that required pitched roofs, and fencing requirements similar to those found in Millcreek Code Chapter 19.78. May referenced code section 19.76.080, Lots and Buildings on Private Rights-Of-Way, and that the applicant would have to meet those outdated requirements except that the Planning Director could approve the development agreement in lieu of them which is what would take place. Chair LaMar asked about the open space. May said the open space requirement was 35% for the project. Adam Von Maack said he was representing the applicant, Sancus Development, as their attorney. He said the developer preferred traditional style homes which suited the neighborhood. Wayne Johnson, Millcreek Cornrnunity Council, the Council agreed the project was a good fit for the neighborhood. The Council had expressed concern about proper setbacks on the north side of the property. ChairLaMar opened the public hearing. Francis Lilly read a comment submitted online from Aurora Green, 751 E. Garden Avenue. a'Hello, My name is Aurora Green, Millcreek resident residing within 600ft of the 755 E 2910 Sproperty. My husband and I are opposed to theproposed rezoning. Wefeel that setting this kind of precedent could lead tofuture developmemsthat abuse anyflexibility we might allow now. The currentzoning of 6.0 units per acre is sufficient. Millcreek Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 17 June 2020 Page 3 of 12 Thank you, Aurora Green" ChairLaMar closed the public hearing. Commissioner Stephens said the proposal was good and fit the neighborhood. He suggested the planning staff decide the roof pitch instead of something other than flat. May said it would be a pitched roof. Commissioner Stephens asked about construction material requirements. Cornrnissioner Allen recommended deferring that to staff. May said he could work with the developer on neighborhood compatible materials and put that in the development agreement. Chair LaMar asked about the 6-foot fence along only the north property line. May said it came as a request from the residents on Parker Street expressing concern about privacy and light. Commissioner Allen asked about the subdivision density. May said the first condition of the proposed development agreement was to limit the project to 6 single family detached units. Commissioner Claerhout clarified that the zone change was to get 2 more lots in addition to the existing home lot. Commissioner Booth moved that the Planning Commission give a positive recommendation to the City Council that the rezone proposal ZM-20-005 with a development agreement and conditions found in the staff report be approved. Commissioner Sieber seconded. Commissioner Stephens asked about amending the motion to include staff working with the applicant on exterior construction materials. Commissioner Booth accepted the amendment. Commissioner Sieber seconded the amended motion. Chair LaMar called for the vote. All Commissioners voted yes. The motion passed unanimously. 1.2 Consideration of ZM-20-006, Rezone from R-1-21 and R-1-10 to R-1-21 Location: 3646 E. Viewcrest Circle Applicants: Laurence and Amy Killen Planner: Erin O'Kelley Erin O'Kelley said the property was originally platted as two separate residential lots in the Mt. Olympus Hills subdivision. The property located at 3646 Viewcrest was currently zoned R-I-10 and the vacant area behind the house was zoned R-1-21. The rezone would be to make the whole property R-1-21. Previously, the applicant owned the property on Viewcrest Circle and the property to the south of it on a different plat. The applicant would like to construct a guest house on the rear of the property. Millcreek code permits guest houses on lots that are zoned R-1-21. By definition, a guesthouse must be located on the same lot of the main dwelling, so a lot consolidation was required. However, Millcreek code requires that the consolidation of two previously subdivided lots must be re-platted to reflect the property boundary changes. The proposed plat and consolidation would result in a split zone lot where one zone allows guesthouses and one zone does not. Therefore, the City required the applicant to rezone the property in addition to a subdivision application. O'Kelley highlighted the proposed changes of the subdivision and the guest house which would be 561 square feet and one story. The property was designated as Neighborhood I in the General Plan, primarily single-family detached homes with 1-2 stories. The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on May 29 and residents there expressed concern about obstruction of views, privacy, construction, utility maintenance, and the use of the guest house as a short- term rental. The Mt. Olympus Community Council, at their meeting on June 2, recommended the rezone be adopted with the recommended zoning condition. Staff did not recommend a development agreement due to the nature of the application. O'Kelley said staff recommended approval of the rezone with the following zone conditions; short term rentals are prohibited, and animals be limited to household pets. She said that the zone condition was Millcreek Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 17 June 2020 Page 4 of 12 already enforced on the property and staff was recoinmending that it not be removed as a result of this rezone. Commissioner Stephens asked about long term rentals of guest houses. O'Kelley said it was not allowed. Cornrnissioner Reid asked about the recommendation for no development agreement. O'Kelley said it was a similar to a city-imposed rezone to clean up and regulate the lot in a better manner on a split zoning lot. The scope of the application did not need to be regulated. The applicant did not provide comment. Francis Lilly said the Mt. Olympus Community Council supported the rezone. ChairLaMar opened the public hearing. Erin O'Kelley read public comments received online into the record. Jeru'iiferWong, 4531 Park Hill Drive, "Ifully support the rezoning of 3646 E. Viewcrest Circle into a single R-121 lot. This rezoning removesthepossibility of the lots being sold separately and reduces the likelihood of increased traffic in thefuture." Gregory O'Neil, 4531 S. Park Hill Drive,'!rpport the consolidation of both lots located at 3646 Viewcrest Cirde and zoning them as R-1-21. I believe this action will be in the best interest of the neighborhood long-term." DanaHolmes,3716ViewcrestCircle, "Hello,Iwouldliketoexpressmysupportforthe guesthousebeingproposedandrezonirtgof3646E. ViewcrestCircleintoasingleR-1-21 lot. I live on this street and am comfortable with the word of the Killens that the structure would riot be usedfor short term rentals. As a resident 072 this street, I also know that the neighbors would keep an eye out and let city officials know if short term remals or any non confirming activities occur. However, I do not think this will be necessary.I thirxk it is admirable that they are maki'tzgspacefor family to visit, and I truly do notsee a downside to allowing them to do this. Thargk you, Dana Holmes" BelvaRobbins,4500BrockbankDrive, "IwanttoprotesttherezoningforProjectNumber ZM-20-006 at the location of 3646 newcrest Cirde, Millcreek, Utah, with application for Amy and Kyle Killian %Andrea Palmer. This property is very large due to the extreme slope of the hill. Combining with arxotherextreme sloped piece of property to built a guest house is a danger to the erosion and copy cat desire of others in the rxeighborhood.I protest the rezone of R-1-21 to R-1-21. Sincerely, Belva Robbins" Chair LaMar closed the public hearing. Commissioner Stephens, as respects to ZM-20-006 rezone from R-1-21 and R-1-10 to R-1- 21, moved that the Planning Commission make a positive recommendation to the rezone subject to the conditions found in the staff report. Commissioner Reid seconded. Chair LaMar called for the vote. Commissioner Allen was not present for the vote. All other Commissioners voted yes. The motion passed unanimously. Millcreek Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 17 June 2020 Page 5 of 12 1.3 Consideration of SD-20-010, Preliminary Plat Approval for a 5-lot Subdivision Location: 3898 E. Thousand Oaks Circle Applicant: Brad Wagstaff Planner: Robert May Robert May said there was a prior rezone of the property with a recorded development agreement which ensured that there would be no future connection between Covecrest Drive and Thousand Oaks Circle. He said the developer had made minor modifications to the subdivision from what they proposed with the rezone. He showed the Commission the new proposed plat. Commissioner Stephens said the applicant had asked for a reduced setback when seeking the rezone. May said the community council and Planning Commission did not feel it was appropriate at that time, so it was not forwarded to the Council. He said the reduction was not part of the subdivision application. Applicant Brad Wagstaff thanked the Commission and staff. He said the property had been reduced from 6 to 5 lots. He said he would like the reduced setback still but understood that it should be part of the building permit application. May said staff was not opposed to the reduction and asked for specifics. Wagstaff said the reduction was specific to lots 1 and 5 because of the slope on the properties. Chair LaMar said the reduced setback was not part of the subdivision application and recommended a continuance to add it in. May said the request did not have to be through the subdivision and felt it could be approved through technical review. Commissioner Stephens said the mechanism by which a setback would be enacted would be through a variance with the Land Use Hearing Officer. Lilly said it would be an RCOZ exception, not a variance. David Baird, Mt. Olympus Community Council, said the Council endorsed the application. He said there was a precedent from previous homes in the area that a reduced 18-foot setback would be appropriate to eliminate a looming aspect on the lots below it. He wanted to see the home elevations before making that recommendation but there was general support for the setback modifications. Chair LaMar opened the public hearing. Francis Lilly read a comment received online from Eric Tuday, 4493 S. Parkview Drive, "Hi All, To introduce myself and myfamily, my name is Eric Tuday. I am a cardiologist and a researcher at the University of Utah/SLC VeteransAffairs Hospital. I live in lot 1506 on your mailed letter, adjacent to lot 5 in the proposal. My wife Laura Moreno, a family practice physician with the University of Utah. We have a young daughter with a son on the way. We enjoy stability, quietness, and relative solitude in our current home when we are off hours. This current proposal has us worried for many reasons: 1) Construction of a property behind our house, that was not othemise allowed, will decrease our home value. 2) Construction on top of a previous improvement (tennis court) may not meet code, we thus askfor a structural review prior to this sale/re-zoning/consolidation of plats. 3) We ask thatMillcreek City delineate the borders of possible of physical construction that may occur on these lots. Millcreek Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 17 June 2020 Page 6 of 12 4) MOSTIMPORTAN'. We would ask that the city council, if they agree to this action of selling off this land with the intent to build a home,place a limitation on the vegetation removed. Speciftcally, ban the removal, pruning, or "TOPPING" of trees 141ithirx 25feet of the adjoining property lines. (The lot behind us has several mature pines 'holding thefort" right on the property border) Thesetrees provide a sound structure to downstream structures and prevent catastrophic mudslides as were seen during the California wildfires not too long ago. This is a distilled list of my concerns. I will attend your virtual meeting. I hope that you (collectively) will address my concerns in your meeting. Sincerely, Eric Tuday, MD, PhD " Chair LaMar closed the public hearing. Chair LaMar and Commissioner Claerhout expressed favor for the application. Commissioner Stephens, as respects to application SD-20-010, moved to grant preliminary subdivision approval as stated in the staff report subject to the conditions and all other items found in the staff report. Commissioner Booth seconded. Chair LaMar called for the vote. All Commissioners voted yes. The motion passed unanimously. 1.4 Consideration of SD-20-012, Final Plat Approval for a Subdivision Amendment to Alter an Existing Public Utility Easement Location: 3925 S. Mount Olympus Way Applicant: Whitney Sanson Planner: Erin O=Kelley Erin O'Kelley addressed two corrections from the staff report; page 8 said "flag Iot" and it should say "subdivision amendment," and the staff report said the application was for a preliminary plat approval and it should be a final plat approval. The subdivision was for a single-family lot in the R-1-10 zone. In 2019, the property received a building permit for a new single-family dwelling and also received a sidewalk exception. The applicant realized there was a public utility easement that needed to be moved to accommodate the new home and would be relocated along the north property line. O'Kelley said there were no in ground utilities in the easement, but the applicant would be burying power lines in the new utility easement. The property owners to the north expressed concern about the removal of the grove of trees between the properties. Staff recommended additional conditions to address these concerns and that the adjacent property owners be consulted about landscaping after the utility lines were buried. She said staff added to the conditions that the applicant would be required to conduct a tree preservation plan that inventories all significant trees and their replacement, caliper for caliper, prior to recording of the final plat in addition to meeting all the requirements found in Chapter 19.77 Water Efficient Landscape Design and Development Standards of the Millcreek Code, the applicant would discuss all proposed changes to landscaping with adjacent property owner, and the applicant would re-landscape any disturbed land with native vegetation. Chair LaMar asked about a significant tree. O'Kelley said the condition did not define it but it was typically based on caliper. Applicant - Whitney Sanson said the property owner wanted to try to preserve the trees when burying the powerlines. She said there was no power in the overhead lines, but there were communication lines from CenturyLink and Comcast that would be buried. The applicant wished to increase the public utility easement to 10 feet to lessen the disturbance to the scrub oak. O'Kelley said the application showed a 7.5-foot easement. Coinmissioner Reid asked Millcreek Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 17 June 2020 Page 7 of 12 about placement of the easement with the scrub oak. Sanson said they would keep the remaining trees. Commissioner Mumford asked about utility lines being buried. Sanson said the existing Comcast and CenturyLink communication lines would be buried. Commissioner Claerhout asked if the applicant was then proposing 10 feet for the easement width. Sanson said after meeting with the utility companies, which was after the application was submitted to the City, they realized they would be able to preserve more of the natural vegetation with the larger easement. Chair LaMar opened the public hearing. Francis Lilly read into the record a comment submitted online from Grant Cooper, 3905 S. Mount Olympus Way, '%ook forward to working with the new property owers." Chair LaMar closed the public hearing. John Brems said since the easement was being enlarged and the applicant requested it, he felt that it was fine for the Planning Commission to approve it without re-noticing the application. Lilly said the easement could be addressed in technical review. Cornrnissioner Mumford asked if both the lines would be buried at the same time. Sanson said they would install the conduit and the utilities would share it. Commissioner Sieber requested that the Commission define "significant" for the trees. O'Kelley said the significance could be defined as the existing species. Sanson did not object. Commissioner LaMar, regarding file SD-20-012, moved to approve the final plat subdivision to alter the existing public utility easement per the items in the staff report and adding the replacement of any of the scrub oak with the same species or any similar species disturbed for the easement and to increase the width of the easement from 7.5 to 10 feet. Commissioner Claerhout seconded. Chair LaMar called for the vote. All Commissioners voted yes. The motion passed unanimously. The Commission took a break from 6:32-6:45 p.m. 1.5 Consideration of SD-20-013, Final Plat Approval for a Subdivision Amendment to an Existing Condominium Plat Location: 3098 S. Highland Drive Applicant: PEG Development Planner: Erin O'Kelley Erin O'Kelley said the request was for preliminary plat approval to amend the Highland Park Plaza Condominiums. The property had a 4-story commercial building that had recently been renovated to allow for residential units to be rented. The remaining property was originally used for parking for the commercial space. A large parking structure existed to the south of the building but had since been torn down and was currently used as landscaping and drainage. The commercial building had been renovated already and the condominium plat was 90% owned by PEG Development. O'Kelley showed the Commission the existing and proposed plats. She said PEG needed to first break off a portion of the existing condo plat, lot 2, and amend the other existing condo plat to the north. PEG would be creating an additional lot through the first condominium amendment. The applicant requested the plat be in two phases. The subdivision application was connected to a previously approved conditional use pennit, CU-20-003, for a mixed-use project in the City Center. Staff was aware of the proposed plat changes at that time and included in the conditions of approval a condition that Millcreek Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 17 June 2020 Page 8 of 12 required the applicant to resolve all property line issues and consolidate the lots to meet applicable zoning and subdivision codes. The process was a condition that must be completed before the applicant received final approval for CU-20-003. Chair LaMar asked why the subdivision process was not done all at once. O'Kelley said she would let the applicant respond to that. She said staff reviewed the project and it was in compliance with the City Center Overlay Zone (CCOZ) and C-3 Zone requirements and the conditional use permit would not be altered. Chair LaMar asked about the changing of unit count. O'Kelley said the same parking standards would be held and the unit count would not change. Lilly said the approved 15% parking reduction was based on the approved table and any change would require administrative or Planning Commission review. O'Kelley said the subdivision was part of the technical conditions of the conditional use permit. Applicant McKay Ouinn, PEG Development, said PEG owned the bakery and seamstress shop parcels to the east. They were waiting on the second phase because they needed a way to purchase the excess parcel in the first phase. He said nothing was changing with the units in Phase 1, and Phase 1 and 2 would share parking. Corni'nissioner Sieber asked about preliminary/final approval. O'Kelley said it was preliminary approval because a new lot was being created. Chair LaMar opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Chair LaMar closed the public hearing. Chair LaMar clarified that the conditions of the conditional use permit would still be met. Commissioner Mumford moved to approve the proposed preliminary plat in SD-20-013 with the recommended staff conditions. Commissioner Claerhout seconded. Commissioner Stephens brought up the eight conditions in the staff report. Commissioner Mumford re-moved to approve the proposed preliminary subdivision in SD-20-013 to include all staff conditions, 1-8. Commissioner Claerhout seconded. The conditions were: * The design of the site and buildings shall comply with all applicable development standards of the Milleeek Zoning Code and any site development standards required by the Millcreek EngineerandBuildirxg Official, and U4'iedFireAuthorhy. * Priortoreceivingfinalplatapproval,theapplicantshallcertifythatexistingutilityservices have the capachy to accommodate additional demand iriduced by the developmetxt, or that the services will be upgraded to meet the additiotxal demand, * Accessory structures will reqyiire separate building permits and staff review for zoning/land rise compliance. * AnymodificationstotheseapprovedplansinustbeapprovedbythePlanningDepartmergt,in writing, prior to the chariges being implemented itx the field. * The proposed subdivisiori plat mxist complete a final technical review that includes an engineering review to ensure that the final plat cotnplies with all comlitions of approval of the preliminary plat and to ensure t1iat the jmal plat complies with the design standards, codes, and ordinances and with miniwun engineering/surveying reqxiirements, including any bonding for possible future improvements. Millcreek Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 17 June 2020 Page 9 of 12 * All applicable zoning, building, health, fire, and safeffl requireinents must be met prior to receiving final approval of a building permit, * The applicant will install all required improveinents, or bond for a// required improvements, prior to recording tlie final plat. * All items of the staff report. Chair LaMar called for the vote. All Commissioners voted yes. The motion passed unanimously. 1.6 Continuing Eusimss - Consideration of ZT-20-004, Recommendation to the City Council Regarding Adoption of a Fencing Ordinance and Amending Clear View Requirements Staff: Blaine Gehring Francis Lilly said he wanted to focus on the items brought up in the field trip work meeting held the prior week. He said in the proposed draft ordinance, he removed a provision to nonconforming fences that caused a safety concern. There was a concept that a nonconforming fence was grandfathered unless it caused a safety concern. He said there were concerns raised about the interpretation of it and clear view concepts that were already addressed in another ordinance. He removed the living fence definition and vegetation counting as a fence. He adjusted the driveway clear view requirement to be 20 feet from the center point of driveway instead of 10 feet from the edge of driveway. He said each driveway had different approaches and a wider driveway suggested more maneuverability so there would be less of a need for clear view. He said specific visual obstructions were removed from the ordinance and the clear view chapter was referenced. He added specific conditional use language for residential retaining walls on properties with greater than a 30% slope. He read from proposed code 19.95.040 D(4)(e). Lilly recommended that front and corner side yard fences requirement be different on local roads versus minor and major collector roads. Lilly said if you are on a local road, you are limited to 3 foot solid or 4 foot open-style fence. If you are on a collector B, minor collector, major collector, minor arterial, or other principal arterial road as established by the roadway classification map in the Transportation Master Plan, you can have a 6 foot open-style or opaque fence. Lilly said open style fencing was allowed up to 6 feet in height for multi- family, commercial, industrial, and institutional development. He expressed a preference for aesthetic reasons that no fencing be taller than 4 feet in the front yard in those zones. Lilly said he added a section on fencing within a public right-of-way and read from proposed code section 19.95.110. Chair LaMar suggested that the property owner should be allowed to remove the fence themselves in 1. of that section. Lilly said he would add language for that. Lilly said Commissioner Stephens brought up wildlife protections, so he added "or trap" to section 1 9.95.090, and that electrified fencing would be prohibited unless used for a legally established agricultural use in an A-1 or A-2 Zone in section 19.95.050(D). Lilly reviewed the height of retaining walls as being 4 feet measured from bottom of foundation, footing, or wall system to the top of the wall from a building code standpoint. He said from a planning standpoint, staff was concerned about a wall from finished grade to the sky. He proposed adding the following language, "For the purpose deternnining if a building permit is required for a retaining wall, height is measured from the bottom of the foundation, footing, or wall system, to the top of the wall. For the purpose of determining the maximum height of a Millcreek Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 17 June 2020 Page 10 of 12 retaining wall, height shall be measured in accordance with 19.95.040 (D)." Chair LaMar suggested adding "from finished grade in accordance with 19.95." Lilly said he asked Unified Police Department about a maximum height for front yard fences and they did not seem to care. Lilly said there was a public benefit to see what was between the street and the door and aesthetically a shorter fence looked better in the front yard in most neighborhoods. The exception would be on a busy road. Chair LaMar opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Chair LaMar closed the public hearing. Commissioner Reid asked about hedges being allowed anywhere except in clear view. Lilly confirmed. Commissioner Reid said the language about the tree canopy in the clear view was unclear. Lilly said the City Council amended code so that trees hanging over the street should be trimmed to 14.5 feet above the pavement. Commissioner Reid suggested that not be included in the clear view section. Commissioner Allen said an exception could be made for a reasonable number of trees and he pointed out that he did not like that provision. Lilly said that language existed in current code. Commissioner Alien did not want staff to be put in the position of determining a reasonable number of trees. Chair LaMar said it was a safety issue and intentionally vague. Cornrnissioner Allen said there were two different clear view standards, one in the clear view ordinance and one in the fencing ordinance. Lilly said he removed the clear view language in the proposed fence ordinance. Commissioner Allen brought up visual obstructions. Lilly said he would fix the conformity issue between the fence and vegetation sections. Commissioner Allen said he had issues in code section 14.12.040. Lilly said the Planning Commission should stick with recommendations to Title 19. Clear view was mentioned in numerous places in the code and the idea was to make reference to the one location; clear view with driveways as it dealt with a fence would be in the fence ordinance and clear view without reference to a fence would be in the clear view ordinance. Cornrnissioner Mumford said safety issues were his top priority with clear view. He asked about defining a "future sidewalk" in the right-of-way section. Lilly said he would look to see where a sidewalk was drawn on surrounding properties and in the road classification cross section standards. Commissioner Claerhout felt public safety was the top priority too. Commissioner Sieber liked keeping clear view and clear view for driveway separate from fencing. She asked about fences greater than 6 feet in height requiring a building permit. Lilly said the building code required a building permit for fences 7 feet tall. She asked about a 6.5-foot fence since 6-7 feet was not spelled out. Lilly said he did not know but said the fence would have to meet zoning code and he would change the language to any fence over 6 feet in height should get a building permit. Commissioner Sieber asked about "sound walls" being defined but reference in the code was to "noise walls." Lilly said he would fix that error. Commissioner Stephens said he was in favor of the clear view standards in the proposed ordinance. Commissioner Reid said clear view rules should be stricter for a corner with a lot of traffic instead of with a driveway. Millcreek Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 17 June 2020 Page 11 of 12 Commissioner Booth said he looked forward to seeing the final draft ordinance. Chair LaMar suggested allowing up to 6-foot-tall fence in the front yard if 50% was open, and 3 foot solid or 4 feet open was too complex. He suggested just doing 4 feet and allowing fences to come to the sidewalk or the street. Commissioner Allen said an open fence up to 75% could be allowed for a front yard fence up to 6 feet in height. Lilly highlighted the open style fencing definition which was 50% or more shall be open. Chair LaMar concurred with Commissioner Allen's comments. Commissioner Reid did not agree to chain-link in the front yard up to 6 feet in height. Lilly recommended the term "metal picket" be allowed and not allow chain- link in height greater than 4 feet in the front yard. He said a 4-foot solid fence would be allowed. Commissioner Stephens, as respects to ZT-20-004, moved to make a positive recommendation to the City Council for the described and discussed amendments to the following code sections: 19.76.160 Intersecting Streets and Clear Visibility, 19.82.110 Visibility at Intersections, 19.44.050 Development Requirements, and 19.76.165 Visibility at Residential Driveways. Commissioner Claerhout seconded. Commissioner Allen said adding a new provision on residential driveways was not a good idea because it would make some houses legally non-conforming. Lilly said he would be removing the first two paragraphs from the clear view section in 19.76.165. Commissioner Stephens amended the motion to add that under 19.76.165 Visibility at Residential Driveways the language under A(1) be deleted. Commissioner Claerhout seconded the amendment. Commissioner Allen said fence clear view was moving back into the clear view ordinance. Chair LaMar called for the vote. Commissioners Mumford, Booth, Claerhout, Sieber, and Stephens voted yes. Commissioners Allen, Reid, and LaMar voted no. The motion passed. Lilly reviewed the changes the Commission discussed to the proposed fencing ordinance. He would remove the first paragraph under Driveway or Lane Visual Obstructions in 19.95.040 and moving it to the clear view ordinance. In the same section, Fence Height Measurement, front and corner side yards would allow fences up to 6 feet in height as long as they were 50% open metal picket, otherwise 4 feet solid or chain-link. In Prohibited Materials, 19.95.050, no chain-link would be allowed in fences greater than 4 feet in height. Fences over 6 feet in height would require a peri'nit. He mentioned the trapping wildlife and electric fencing changes. There would also be a consistent term for sound walls instead of noise walls. Commissioner Alien moved to recommend approval to the City Council of the fence ordinance 19.95 subject to the changes that Francis Lilly outlined and was discussed. Commissioner Mumford seconded. Chair LaMar called for the vote. All Commissioners voted yes. The motion passed unanimously. 2. Business Meeting 2.1 Approval of May 20, 2020 Meeting Minutes Commissioner Claerhout moved to approve the minutes from last month's meeting. Commissioner Booth seconded. Chair LaMar called for the vote. All Commissioners voted yes. Commissioner Sieber abstained. The motion passed. 2.2 Updates from the Planning and Zoning Director Mfflcreek Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 17 June 2020 Page 12 of 12 Francis Lilly thanked the Commission for passing the fencing ordinance. Commissioner Stephens said on item 1.1, what was presented was well thought out by planning staff. He commended plaru'iing staff on the footwork on a project that was a good project. Lilly said the planning staff relied on the General Plan. Commissioner Mumford asked if the documents presented in the Planning Commission meetings were legal documents. Lilly said the documents become part of the public record and the minutes reflected any changes made to those documents. 3. Calendar of Upcoming Meetings * City Council Mtg., 6/22/20, 5:00 p.m. at City Hall * Canyon Rim Citizens Association Mtg., 7/1/20, 7:00 p.m. TBD * Mt. Olympus Community Council Mtg., 7/7/20, 6:00 p.m. TBD * Millcreek Community Council Mtg., 7/7/20, 6:30 p.m. TBD @ City Council Mtg., 7/13/20, 5:00 p.m. at City Hall * Planning Commission Mtg., 7/15/20, 5:00 p.m. at City Hall ADJOURNED: Commissioner Sieber moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:58 p.m. Commissioner Stephens seconded. Chair LaMar called for the vote. All Commissioners voted yes. The motion passed unanimously, ,1 / Attest: Else 'ity Recorder