Planning Commission

Minutes of the Millcreek Planning Commission July 15, 2020 5:00 p.m. Regular Meeting The Planning Commission of Millcreek, Utah, met in a regular public meeting on Wednesday, July 15, 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 Elyse Sullivan, City Recorder David Allen (electronic) Francis Lilly, Planning and Zoning Director Scott Claerhout (excused) Robert May, Planner Fred Healey (absent) Erin O'Kelley, Planner Victoria Reid (electronic) Jared Bowling, IT/Facilities Manager Skye Sieber (electronic) Andrew Clark, Emergency Manager Tom Stephens Samah Safiullah, Planner (electronic) Attendees: Mayor Jeff Silvestrini, Council Member Dwight Marchant, Bryan Balli, Jill Balli, Brad Allen, David Black, Sumner Swaner, Josip Moger, Alan Gygi, Caroline Spencer, Nancy & Jack Hobbs, J. M. Anderson, S. A. Luck, John Thomas, Brandon Pehrson, Craig Jacobs (electronic), Cherie Orellana (electronic), Andrea Palmer (electronic), Ryan Reynolds (electronic), and Dale Bennett (electronic). REGULAR MEETING - 5:00 p.m. TIME COMMENCED: 5:03 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 Commissioner Scott Claerhout would be reappointed to a new term in August. Commissioner Mark Mumford, whose term ended, would leave the Commission and Ian Wright would be appointed as the new commissioner. He recommended that since items 1.1 and 1.3 were about the same property that they be heard together. Commissioner Booth moved to move item 1.3 ahead of item 1.2. Commissioner Stephens seconded. Chair LaMar caned for the vote. All Commissioners voted yes. The motion passed unanimously. Mnlcreek Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 15 July 2020 Page 2 of 13 1. Public Hearings 1.I Consideration of ZM-20-007, Rezone of a Portion of Properties to Adjust the R-I-8 and R-1-21 Zone Boundary to Established Property Lines Location: 2660 E. Evergreen Avenue & 3500 S. Hillside Lane Planner: Erin O=Kelley Erin O'Kelley said the applicant was seeking preliminary plat approval for a 3-lot subdivision, two traditional lots that front on Hillside Lane and one flag-lot with access off Hillside Lane. The lots would meet the minimum requirements of the R-1-8 zone. The applicant would not be demolishing the existing house on the proposed Lot 2. Millcreek was requiring a rezone application associated with the proposed subdivision due to the fact the property located at 3500 Hillside was currently a split zoned parcel with a portion of the lot zoned R-1-21. The proposed subdivision was created to comply with the minimum lot standards for the R-1-8 zone which accounts for most of the property. For the subdivision to meet all applicable zoning and subdivision requirements the entire parcel needs to be zoned R-1-8. Staff went through historical records and the zoning map from 1957 showed property lines where they currently exist so the zone boundary had not changed. The subject property neighborhood is zoned for single-family use. The zones in the neighborhood range from R-1- 8, R-1-10, and R-1-21. O'Kelley showed the Commission images of the property. There was no sidewalk, curb, or gutter on the frontage but there was a private irrigation canal. The property is located in a FEMA floodplain, so any lot property owner would have to build in the platted buildable area. The existing garage would be demolished. The Millcreek Future Land Use Map identified the property as Neighborhood 1, which is designated as low-density residential uses, 1-2 stories in height typically single-family lots. The proposed subdivision would be compatible with the General Plan and Millcreek code. O'Kelley said the neighborhood response to the proposal was negative. The neighbors did not want to increase density, add more driveways, increase traffic, reduce the number of mature trees, deal with construction, and generally felt that the street overall was unsafe. O'Kelley said the community councils do not review subdivision applications, but the East Mill Creek Community Council voted to recommend approval of the proposed rezone. Staffs analysis was that the rezone would put one existing property in one zone and would not affect any other properties and it was the City's policy to rectify zone boundaries when they do no match property lines. She said redevelopment in the City was considered new development and therefore subject to current standards. The applicant would be required to install curb, gutter, sidewalk, and 133 feet of improvements would be installed along the proposed frontage. The applicant would be required to work with the irrigation company about the ditch. O'Kelley said more than half of the subject property was zoned R-1-8, so the land could potentially be subdivided into 6-7 lots instead of the proposed 3 and still meet code. Staff recommended approval of the rezone. Commissioner Stephens asked if there would be two driveways on Hillside Lane. O'Kelley said there would be three with the current proposal. Commissioner Stephens asked if the applicant had shown that the subdivision code could be satisfied. O'Kelley confirmed. Commissioner Allen asked if the zone change were not approved if it would still meet the subdivision code. O'Kelley said the property would still meet the subdivision code, the rezone was to clean up the boundaries. She said the code did not address a subdivision in two zones, so it would need to be fixed either way. Comtnissioner Reid asked about the sidewalk placement. O'Kelley said the sidewalk would be 5 feet wide and curb and gutter would be an additional 2 feet. She said the applicant would need to negotiate with the irrigation company Millcreek Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 15 July 2020 Page 3 of 13 about the ditch placement. Commissioner Booth asked about loss of width to the road with the sidewalk and gutter. O'Kelley said the asphalt would be expanded into the applicant's property with a road dedication, so the road would not be made smaller. Commissioner Booth asked if the applicant had worked with the adjacent property owner about connecting a sidewalk. O'Kelley did not know of any conversations, but the adjacent property owner would be required to install a sidewalk if they redeveloped their property. Commissioner Sieber said there were concerns about speed of traffic on the road. She asked what the recourse would be for unsafe speeds on the road. O'Kelley said there was a speed limit sign on the corner and the City had worked with the adjacent property owner to keep it visible from neighboring vegetation. She felt the only way to make the road safer would be to widen it. Commissioner Booth asked about the proximity of the three driveways. O'Kelley said the nature of three driveways was allowed by code, every lot is allowed one driveway. Staff did not recommend restricting the proposal to two driveways. Francis Lilly said staff could ask nicely to consolidate driveways, but every lot that is created was allowed to have an access. He said it could be a reasonable mitigation that would be up to the applicant. Chair LaMar asked about fencing. O'Kelley said the reference to fencing in the staff report was a technical error. Applicant - Dale Bennett with Benchmark Civil, said a traffic study was not necessary and the impact of two additional homes was minimal. The sight distance with the new driveways would be really good. He said some old trees would be removed to add the curb, gutter, and sidewalk. The applicant met with the irrigation company already and the proposed plans reflected their discussion. Commissioner Allen asked if the landowner to the south was willing if the applicant would build the connecting sidewalk for them. Applicant Craig Jacobs said he could talk to the property owner. Commissioner Booth asked about trees. Jacobs said the access on the flag lot would be an additional eight feet wide to help preserve the trees. Chair LaMar read an online comment from Nancy Carlson-Gotts from the East Mill Creek Community Council into the record. "There is an application for a rezone as a preface to a subdivision at subject address. Do you then approve a subdivision application before the community seesthe renderings of what's being proposed? It seemsthat the proposed 3 lots are 'interesting', 2 of the new lots are slivers that would contain a 'small' house; not sure what small means. The 2 lot would be larger and contain the existing home. I thinlc we should see a proposal of the layout of the homes as to size, shape, style, etc. before approving a subdivision 1. Traffic is a concern becauseof the 3/4 schools in the area; Hillside is a narrow, country lane that has the sharp turn right where the entiy to the lot(s) are/would be. 2. Concern over the density of the homes in that area, 3 lots may be okay, but the documentlsaw, indicates 2 small slivers and 1 larger lot. Would want to see more specifics on what the applicant is proposmg. 3. I might be concerned over the look and size/scale and height of the homes; having no document that gives us the layout, I can't 8ve specifics at this time. 4. Concern over the creek and development; we have seen several along the creek that have caused concern with residents, encroachment, deterioration ofstream bank with removal of trees and construction; e.g., the large home on the 's' curve, the development on Honeycutt (atMillcreek Way), property across creekfrom the community center. 5. The trees, a major asset to the stream - will they be removed and how many ? Will trees be required to be planted to replace those removed during construction. We had a development where trees were removed becausethey were 'infested' w/o providing proof they were infested. Millcreek Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 15 July 2020 Page 4 of 13 6. )That will be the impact to neighbors across the creek; in terms of what will they be seeing? How will it change the quiet, calm senseof the creek and those residents who live along the stream." O'Kelley said the zoning had been established since 1954. There was no official legal description of the zone boundary so historical data was used. Chair LaMar noted there was a lot of online public comment on the matter. He said the Planning Commission received 23 online public coinments about the application altering the character of the neighborhood, the curb and road being unsafe, that there was no sidewalk, tree preservation, and concerns about the irrigation ditch. He said the Commission was looking for new information on the matter. Chair LaMar opened the public hearing. Bryan Balli, 3521 Hillside Lane, spoke in opposition of the zone change and subdivision. He brought up concern about guest parking since there was no parking allowed on the corner. He said the street was a major thoroughfare for pedestrian and cyclists and widening the street would encourage more. He showed the Cornrnission an aerial map indicating which nearby property owners were in favor of, against, or unknown about the proposed subdivision. The image reflected a majority being opposed. Jack Hobbs, 2575 Neffs Lane, said Mr. Black (property owner) felt that traffic was so heavy on that street that he had appealed to the County Commission to block off the street. He asked the Planning Cornrnission to consider the 5 speed bumps on Evergreen Avenue because traffic had shifted to the "s" curve on Neffs Lane. Jill Balli, 3521 Hillside Lane, showed the Commission a picture of Hillside Lane and stated the corner was not safe and she was opposed to the application. David Black, 3500 Hillside Lane, said as the subject property owner, the property had never been closed off. He has a deaf son, so a friend thought the road was dangerous for him and went to the County Commission. He said the road was never closed. He said previous people had tried to buy the property with the intent of subdividing for 6-7 new lots, but the current applicant was only proposing 3 lots. He said the road would be safer with the buried ditch, widened asphalt, and added sidewalks. He felt the proposal was the best solution to remedy any unsafeness. Elyse Sullivan read into the record an online comment received firom Sean Thompson, 3550 S. Hillside Lane, "I am opposed to the granting of the subdivision for a couple of reasons. First, the location of the property is located on a very tight corner orb a very narrow roadway. The currentspeed limitof this lane is 15 mph though traffic travels atsignificantly higherspeeds. Introduction of two additional driveways represents and egregious decrease in traffic safety. Our childreri walk homefrom school along this stretch of road and already have to deal with dangerous traffic. Adding multiple curb cuts at this location is not good planning or engineering. Second, the property is curreritly a single family residence with copious large trees 072 the property. Grantirtg the subdivision will result in significant loss of these trees and the associated benefits of shade, aesthetics and acoustics enjoyed by the residents and their neighbors. Though the land owner is within their rights to develop a second property I do not think that it is in the neighborhoods' interest to reward the destntction of thesenatural amenitiesfor the benefit of a developer' profit by granting a third lot. Third, the impact of the construction will have an adverse affect upon those inhabitants in the neighborhood. There is no available room for construction activity. Millcreek Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 15 July 2020 Page 5 of 13 For thesereasons and concerns regarding additional traffic/safety I am firmly opposed." The applicant declined to respond to public comment. Chair LaMar closed the public hearing. Commissioner Allen said he did not like the idea of adding two new driveways. He would like the extending of the sidewalk onto the neighbor's property to be a condition of approval. He did not want gates on any of the driveways. Commissioner Sieber said she did not have an issue with the rezone but from a public safety standpoint, the current situation was a concern. She requested a shared access driveway to help mitigate the safety concern. She brought up potential remedies for the speed. Cornrnissioner Reid said the three lots would be generous to the smaller lots across the street. She said there would be more clear view with trees removed and the added curb, gutter, and sidewalk. The property rights needed to be honored. Commissioner Stephens said if a subdivision application meets the standards of the City's subdivision code, then the Planning Commission shall grant it. He felt the addition of the clear view would be a tremendous benefit. He was okay with the rezone and the three driveways. He said extending the sidewalk to the neighbor's property would be desirable but that was beyond the scope of what could be required for the application. The zone change was a technical matter that would not affect the subdivision. Commissioner Booth said he did not want there to be three driveways for safety reasons. Chair LaMar suggested the applicant consider combining accesses to two driveways. He said the 3-lot subdivision was the best use compared to what it could be. Commissioner Stephens, as respects to ZM-20-007, moved for the Planning Commission to recommend approval of the zone change from R-1-8 and R-1-21 to only R-1-8 based on reasons given in the staff report and discussion given tonight. Commissioner Booth seconded. Chair LaMar called for the vote. Commissioners Allen and Booth voted no. Commissioners Reid, Sieber, Stephens, and LaMar voted yes. The motion passed. 1.3 Consideration of SD-20-015, Preliminary Plat Approval for a 3-lot Subdivision Including 1 Flag Lot Location: 3500 S. Hillside Lane Applicant: Craig Jacobs Planner: Erin O'Kelley Commissioner Sieber, as respects to SD-20-015, moved to approve the proposed flag lot subdivision with the conditions outlined in the staff report minus condition number 8 regarding Countryside Drive. Commissioner Reid seconded. Commissioner Alien said the Planning Commission needed tools for driveway access discretion for safety reasons. Chair LaMar called for the vote. Commissioners Allen and Booth voted no. Commissioners Reid, Sieber, Stephens, and LaMar voted yes. The motion passed. 1.2 Consideration of EX-20-004, Request to Have a Duplex Use Declared Legal Through Special Exception Location: 4538 Range Circle Applicant: Chance Wilden Planner: Erin O'Kelley Erin O'Kelley said the property was currently a nonconforming duplex. Due to the current zoning of R-1-8, the use as a duplex was not a permitted use. The applicant was proposing to have the use of a duplex declared legal through special exception. Building permits from the detached garage in the 1970's was being using as evidence of the garage and duplex existing Millcreek Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 15 July 2020 Page 6 of 13 for more than 10 years. The property was a corner lot with two drive accesses that served as parking for each unit. O'Kelley showed the Commission pictures of the property. The old building permit did not define the garage as having a residential unit as part of it. At their regularly scheduled meeting on July 7, 2020, the Millcreek Coinmunity Council offered a positive recom+nendation to approve the special exception to declare the non-conforming use legal. O'Kelley said staff was required to review variables per Code 19.88 for a special exception; continuous violation of zoning for a period exceeding ten years, no complaints or violations on the property in the last ten years, and that continuation of the use would not have a detrimental effect on the health, safety, or welfare of persons or property in the vicinity. O'Kelley said the applicant provided documentation that the building had existed in its current condition for a period of greater than ten years, there were no complaints with the City against the property but O'Kelley had not yet heard back from the County about any, and staff was not concerned about any detrimental effects in granting the exception. Commissioner Reid asked about staff looking for code violations. O'Kelley said the rental business license would require a building inspection. Applicant - Cherie Ordellana said the original garage was built in 1978 and later in 1979 the area above the garage was approved. Commissioner Allen asked why the structure was not processed as an accessory dwelling unit (ADU). O'Kelley said ADUs and duplexes were not allowed in the R-1 zones. Staff said when people inquire about the process, they recommend that residents wait for the draft ADU ordinance to be adopted, but residents could go with the special exception route instead since a current process was in place. Chair LaMar opened the public hearirig. There were no comments other than the one attached to the staff report. Chair LaMar closed the public hearirxg. Commissioner Stephens said he would be inclined for a continuance based on the unknown information if complaints had been made with the County. Chair LaMar brought up approval with a condition of any county complaints. Cornrnissioner Alien agreed. Commissioner Reid would like the condition that the applicant pass a building inspection. Commissioner Sieber was in favor of both conditions. Commissioner Stephens asked about the building inspection. O'Kelley said building code standards for a duplex and a safety inspection would be part of the business license inspection. Commissioner Stephens, as respects to EX-20-004 request that a duplex use declared legal through special exception, moved that the Planning Commission grants that exception subject to the following conditions: l) the applicant obtains a business license for renting the unit which includes a satisfactory passage of a Millcreek City building inspection, and 2) that granting the exception is contingent upon no adverse response from Salt Lake County Development Services Division as respects to any filed complaints going back to the ten year period and if there are complaints then the special exception is not granted and this matter will have to come back to the Planning Mfflcreek Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 15 July 2020 Page 7 of 13 Commission for further deliberation. Commissioner Allen seconded. Chair LaMar called for the vote. All Commissioners voted yes. The motion passed unanimously. 1.4 Consideration of SD-20-016, Preliminary Plat Approval for a I-lot Subdivision Amendment Location: 3646 E. Viewcrest Circle Applicant: Kyle Killen Planner: Erin O'Kelley Erin O'Kelley said the property was discussed the prior month for a rezone and had not yet been finalized by the City Council. The applicant was proposing a 1-lot subdivision to consolidate two subdivided lots in the Mount Olympus Hills subdivision. The subdivision would create one lot in the R-1-21 zone. The property owner would like to build an accessory structure guesthouse in the backyard of the main house located on 3646 Viewcrest Circle. An older accessory structure in the rear of the property had been demolished. She showed the Commission the proposed plans and plat for the property. There would be a new utility easement to the southeast and the power lines would be buried. She highlighted that the application was for preliminary plat approval and would be subject to the approval of the rezone application ZM-20-006. Commissioner Sieber asked if the guesthouse would be an ADU. O'Kelley said the R-1-21 zone allowed guesthouses and the application would not be required to follow an ADU ordinance. Commissioner Sieber verified that the guesthouse would not have its own access. O'Kelley confirmed. Applicant - Andrea Palmer did not offer comment. Chair LaMar opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Chair LaMar closed the public hearing. Commissioner Reid, regarding SD-20-016, moved to approve the preliminary plat approval for the 1-lot subdivision with all the conditions suggested by staff. Commissioner Sieber seconded. Chair LaMar called for the vote. All Commissioners voted yes. The motion passed unanimously. The Commission took a break from 6:48-7:08 p.m. 1.5 Consideration of SD-20-017, Preliminary Plat Approval for a 4-lot Subdivision Including 2 Flag Lots Location: 773 & 767 E. Scott Avenue Applicant: Brandon Pehrson Planner: Robert May Robert May said the subject parcels were in the R-1-6 zone, collectively consisted of approximately 1 acre of area, and had 135 feet of frontage along Scott Avenue. The area is primarily low density residential with single-family homes but does have a light mixture of medium density with apartments and condominiums. Many of the lots are deep and situated next to Mill Creek resulting in some floodplain designations. May said there were existing flag lots on Scott Avenue making the ability to subdivide utilizing the flag lot policy consistent with the neighborhood. May showed the Commission pictures of the property and the preliminary plat that showed a proposed shared driveway. The north portions of the rear Millcreek Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 15 July 2020 Page 8 of 13 flag lots were in the floodway zone. In the R-1-6 zone, the base lot must be a minimum of 6,000 square feet and have at least 60 feet of width. The flag lot must be a minimum of 9,000 square feet and have at least a 20-foot-wide access. Staff received two resident comments about the proposed subdivision and traffic and parking were the greatest concerns. The subdivision did not get reviewed by the community council. May said staff recommended preliminary approval be granted subject to the conditions in the staff report. Chair LaMar asked if Lots 2 and 4 would front on Scott Avenue or the proposed road. May said the four lots would access from the private access road. Chair LaMar asked about tree preservation. May said the subdivision would be subject to code and it was included in staffs conditions of approval. Applicant - Brandon Pehrson, 11099 S. Farnsworth Lane, said the property was blighted and the existing home was condemned. He said most traffic came from 700 E. Each lot would have two car garages with one driveway off of Scott Avenue. Commissioner Sieber asked about plans for the floodplain area. Pehrson said the lots would be privately owned. May said most of the area near the floodplain would not be disturbed due to protections with Salt Lake County. Chair LaMar opened the public hearing. Chair LaMar read into the record an online public comment submitted by Anna Papulak, 769 Shady Lake Drive, 'RegardingProject # SD-29-01 7. I live riorth of this property, in the Shadybrook Condo complex. This property was originally designedfor 2 lots. Now it has been revised to include 4 lots. I'm concerned about the small space with the additional inclusion of 2 more lots. I'm also concerned with the existirig trees sitting south of the Millcreek being removed, thereby destroying what little privacy remains and what little natural beauffl is lefl. I would appreciate some feedback on this. Also, how many units are planned for each lot and how many stories are planned for each unit? Thanks" Robert May read an online public comment received from Brad and Barbara Sprinz. "Regarding the public meeting on July 15, 2020, we will be out of town. We live at 800 East Scott Avenue and are neighbors to the property in this project. Thus here is a list of our concernsfor Project Location 773 and 767 East ScottAvenue. TRAFFIC - Scott Avenue already has increased in traffic becauseScottAvenue is the only thru street between 3300 south and 3900 south. Too many commuters, that do NOT live on ScottAvenue use it as thoroughfare. Build even MORE structures on our already crowded street, will obviously and upsetting increase traffic. And the traffic does NOT follow speed limit regulations at all. Drivers seem to think is a afreeway. PARKING-Another issue on ScottAvenue. Therefore we absolutely need the developer to properly address theparking situation and guarantee that the residents will have adequate parking OFF the street and individual property boundaries. Please address these issues to the developer, expressing our concerns and that of our neighbors, to resolve it before the project gets underway. Thank you for your time." Chair LaMar closed the public hearing. Commissioner Stephens asked if the application complied with the subdivision ordinance and flag lot policy. May confirmed. Mfflcreek Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 15 July 2020 Page 9 of 13 Commissioner Booth moved that SD-20-017, preliminary plat approval for a 4-lot subdivision including hvo flag lots, be approved subject to the conditions in the staff report. Commissioner Reid seconded. Chair LaMar called for the vote. All Commissioners voted yes. The motion passed unanimously. 1.6 Consideration of SD-20-014, Preliminary Plat Approval for a 2-lot Subdivision Location: 3419 S. 1300 E. Applicant: Brad Reynolds Planner: Robert May Robert May said the Coinrnission saw the rezone from a R-1-8 to a R-2-8 for the property last year. He said the property would have a duplex constructed similar in design to the Millcreek Meadows PUD to the south of it. The purpose of the subdivision was to facilitate a two-family dwelling with individual property parcel numbers. He showed the Commission the proposed plat. He said per Code 19.32.090, a lot containing a two-family dwelling may be subdivided, creating a new lot line along the shared common wall and extending to the front and rear property lines, subject to the following conditions: 1) the minimum area of the lot containing each unit shall be 4,000 square feet; 2) the division of ground is subject to the requirements of the Title 18; and 3) the subdivision plat shall specifically note that the purpose of the subdivision is to accommodate a two-family dwelling. May said he received comment from the property owner to the northeast about the trees on the shared property line and the canal ditch. He said the applicant did not intend to remove any trees there, so May made it a condition of approval. May said he added to the presentation, though it was not in the staff report, the condition that the developer obtain an approval letter and meet all the improvements required by the Lower Canal Company. He said the subdivision did not go to the community council, but the Millcreek Community Council did recommend unanimous approval of the prior rezone. Staff recommended the Commission grant preliminary subdivision approval with the conditions located in the staff report and the new condition added about the ditch. Commissioner Reid asked about the tree preservation ordinance. May said it was in code section 19.77.040. Commissioner Reid asked about preserving the northern trees in a condition of approval. May said he could add a requiring a tree preservation plan. Applicant - Ryan Reynolds said there was no intention of removing the trees because it offered a good buffer. He said he had met with Ron Carlston, Ditch Master with the Lower Ditch Company, and he was willing to meet the conditions set forth by staff. Chair LaMar opened the public hearing. Caroline Spencer, 3443 S. 1300 E., asked about a condition of removing the trees. She said the north trees were supposed to be preserved in the Meadows of Millcreek PUD and they were removed. She asked about the difference between a duplex and a twin home. May said duplexes could be subdivided for individual ownersip. Spencer asked if there would be two driveways on 1300 E. May said there would be two. Spencer felt two would be a safety concern. She also expressed concern about parking with two separate households. May said the parking standards were the same, each unit would have to provide two stalls, one of which was covered. May said everything would be reviewed in the technical review process with the City's Public Works Department. Chair LaMar closed the public hearing. Millcreek Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 15 July 2020 Page 10 of 13 Commissioner Reid said it would be good to figure out the tree situation; if they need to be removed along the northern border, the applicant should submit a tree preservation plan to the City. Commissioner Sieber asked about the driveways. Reynolds said the plans showed a straight driveway 41.5 feet wide. Cornrnissioner Sieber asked if it was shared. Reynolds said it could be viewed that way with the property line going down the middle, but they could add a park strip if staff requested it. Commissioner Stephens, as respects to SD-20-014 preliminary plat approval for a 2-lot subdivision, moved to give preliminary approval to the plat subject to the staff report conditions and adding the two following conditions, first, that the canal company is required to approve the plat and the second that a tree preservation plan will be required for areas if removal of trees along the canal side of the property, the shared property line to the north. Commissioner Allen seconded. Chair LaMar caned for the vote. All Commissioners voted yes. The motion passed unanimously. 1.7 Consideration of ZT-20-005, Amendments to Chapters 19.04 and 19.60 of the Millcreek Code Regulating Commercial Zones and Mixed Use Buildings Planner: Francis Lilly Francis Lilly said staff had observed shortcomings in the commercial zones with regard to mixed use buildings. The current code could be difficult to apply and interpret. The proposed code replaces footnote language and puts it into tables for mixed uses. He said residential standards differed in the multifamily zones and commercial zones. Staff would like to better balance incentives by ensuring higher standards for commercial uses in mixed use corridors. He said commercial ground floor requirements were inadequate and inflexible, the City was not seeing the type of desired cornrnercial projects, design standards were inadequate, and the current zone preferred one building type which was a vertically integrated mixed-use building on sites where separate buildings in a unified site plan may be more effective and appropriate. He then critiqued prior projects that had been approved in the City. Lilly said 3300 S. was a mixed-use corridor because residential and commercial uses coexisted. More people living along the corridor would help activate existing and proposed commercial spaces. Desired spaces like small retail shops, personal services, and restaurants thrive where there are many people living nearby. Mixed use development provides a viable option to redevelop obsolete sites. Many smoke shop and commercial storage requests along the corridor suggested that Millcreek had an overabundance of single-purpose commercial buildings that performed below expectations. Lilly showed the Commission the Future Land Use Map in the General Plan and said it supported mixed uses. He then reviewed the Mixed Use 1 and Mixed Use 2 District descriptions. Lilly said that mixed use commercial was flourishing but some retail sites were empty or functionally obsolete in commercial corridors. Lilly reviewed the proposed code changes. He said to qualify, a mixed-use project must have a minimum of 100 feet of frontage on a major collector or arterial road. There would be an increase in maximum building height to 45 feet, and 35 feet within 100 feet of a residential zone. The current standard was 40 feet and 30 feet. The extra feet offered more flexibility, tall residential ceilings, better roof articulation, possibility of pitched roofs, more functional garages, a retail storefront at grade, and other creative design elements. Lilly showed the Commission examples of recent cornrnercial, residential, and mixed-use buildings in Millcreek Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 15 July 2020 Page 11 of 13 Millcreek to point out where some of the code changes would have helped the project and what had already worked well with the project. He explained why a two-story limit or building height of 30 feet was not desirable. There is a two-story limit in the CCOZ area immediately adjacent to existing single-family, affecting property on the east side of Highland Drive. In this instance, the City Center Master Plan actively encouraged the adaptive reuse of the existing commercial uses along the Highland Drive corridor in the City Center. Staff was not convinced that the same desire existed for many of the functionally obsolete commercial buildings elsewhere in the commercial corridor. The proposed code included a maximum building length of 200 feet, no more than 20% of a fagade could be stucco, EIFS, or metal siding, and a 10-foot step back for buildings taller than 35 feet. Commercial uses would not include lobbies, leasing offices, required parking, or residential amenities. Currently, code required a minimum of 40-foot-deep commercial spaces occupy 50% of building frontage. The proposal offered flexibility of a 40-foot depth with 50% frontage or 30-foot depth at 80% of frontage, and freestanding commercial buildings occupy 30% of the gross ground floor area of the development site. There would be two concepts of mixed use, vertically mixed-use buildings, and mixed-use buildings in a unified site plan. Staff wanted to make sure that freestanding cornrnercial buildings meaningfully contribute to the mixed-use concept. Freestanding commercial buildings could occupy 30% of the gross ground floor area of the development site, and at least 50% of the frontage with the proposed ordinance. Lilly showed the Coinmission examples and site plans of both mixed-use types. The proposed ordinance included a pre-application site plan review, prior to qualifying an application for community council and Plaru'iing Commission review. A similar process exists for applications in the CCOZ, because a longer review lead time results in better clarity and better outcomes. Lilly concluded that the ordinance should change because the mixed use form is the most likely redevelopment scenario for commercial corridors, especially for functionally obsolete sites outside of the City Center and Meadowbrook, heightened design standards would result in better looking buildings, frontage and commercial areas and ground story height requirements would promote the creation of meaningful commercial spaces along corridors, and updates would produce better outcomes in the form of mixed use projects with more meaningful cornrnercial uses. Lilly said all four community councils gave recommendations of approval for the proposed code concept. He said he added sections on building massing and fagade articulation and street tree requirements. He said the Commission used to have the option of allowing greater height up to 75 feet for areas within 500 feet of 1300 E. and 3300 S. and that was rendered moot and removed. The flexibility was also offered in the Meadowbrook area and on Main Street. He said the one time the Commission had used it, it was a difficult process, so he struck that from the proposed code. Commissioner Allen said he would like to see a higher percentage of commercial. Commissioner Booth agreed with Commissioner Allen's comments and said the Commission should be able to make changes in the future to the ordinance if something did not work. Commissioner Sieber said the proposal was an improvement to current code and would result in better projects. She would appreciate more time to review the proposed amendments. Commissioner Reid suggested recommending approval of the proposal if projects were Millcreek Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 15 July 2020 Page 12 of 13 pending. Commissioner Stephens said he was in favor of passing a recommendation of approval of the ordinance with the understanding that it was living document and could change as needed. Chair LaMar said he would want to run through scenarios of buildings with a small footprint to have a better balance of commercial and residential such as a total square footage required a certain percentage of commercial. Chair LaMar brought up the twenty feet separation for rooftop gardens. Lilly said it came from the City Center Overlay Zone (CCOZ) code to allow for variation other than a wall. Chair LaMar brought up unfinished concrete in the building materials section. Lilly said he would remove it. He said about the commercial ratio concept, he did not include a minimum ratio to be able get a better project and not punish the developer for using the zone. He wanted to see spaces get occupied and the curently used spaces tended to be around 1200-1500 square feet. Chair LaMar opened the public hearing. Chair LaMar read into the record a comment received online from Bruce Parker, 3007 E. Cruise Way, 'Planning Commissioners, The standards ofMinimum Frontage of 100 feet and a Maximum BuildingLerigth of 200 feet may work to only allow "larger" mixed-useprojects. Community benefits can accruefrom smaller, more intimate scaled mixed-useprojects. Please consider revising the Minimum Frontage of 100 feet to allow a smaller "frontage" to qualify for a mixed-use opportunity. A suggestion; a minimum frontage of 100 feet, or as determined by the Land UseAuthority. Thank Youfor all you do to the benefit of Millcreek City and its residems. BP" Lilly said with the 100 feet of frontage, it could account for setbacks or a side drive aisle, so there could be a 50-foot building. He agreed with the concept but did not accommodate for it in the ordinance. Chair LaMar closed the public hearing. Commissioner Sieber asked if under a unified site plan, if the minimum frontage and building length could become problematic. Lilly said it could work. Commissioner Allen asked about a timeline for the proposed code amendments. Lilly said the Cornrnission could review the proposal again in August, but he wanted clear direction to prepare the ordinance for approval. Commissioner Booth asked about a pending ordinance. John Brems said the City could adopt one. Lilly suggested the Council adopt a pending ordinance to prevent applications then the Commission could review the ordinance again in August. Chair LaMar asked about a compatible design with a unified site plan. Lilly read from proposed code 19.60.060(D)(1)(b), Mixed Use in a Unified Site Plan. A mixed use development in a unified site plan consists of separate residential and commercial or vertically-integrated mixed use buildings in a site plan that features consistent approaches to lighting, landscaping, signage, building design, and materials use. Chair LaMar asked about uses that were not good together in a unified site plan. Lilly said staff could add prohibitory language for use categories, such as drive-throughs. Commissioner Stephens, as respects to ZT-20-004 qmpnrlmcnta to Chapters 19.04 and 19.60, moved that this application be continued to the scheduled 2020 August Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Sieber seconded. John Brems suggested the Planning Commission recommend the Council adopt a pending ordinance. Chair LaMar called for the vote. An Commissioners voted yes. The motion passed unanimously.  Millcreek Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 15 July 2020 Page 13 of 13 Commissioner Stephens moved to make a strong recommendation to the City Council to adopt a pending ordinance as respects to Chapters 19.04 and 19.60 of the Millcreek Code Regulating Commercial Zones and Mixed Use Buildings with the rationale to give the Planning Commission and City Council adequate time and preparation for decision making to the extent applicable it is a pending ordinance. Commissioner Reid seconded. Chair LaMar called for the vote. All Commissioners voted yes. The motion passed unanimously. 2. Business Meeting 2.1 Approval of June 10, 2020 Special Meeting Minutes Commissioner LaMar moved to approve the notes in the packet for the June 10f" special meeting. Commissioner Booth seconded. Chair LaMar called for the vote. Commissioner Allen was not present for the vote. Commissioner Stephens abstained. Commissioners Booth, Sieber, Reid, and LaMar voted yes. The motion passed. 2.2 Approval of June 17, 2020 Regular Meeting Minutes Commissioner Sieber moved to approve the minutes from June 17, 2020 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Booth seconded. Chair LaMar called for the vote. Commissioner Allen was not present for the vote. Commissioners Booth, Sieber, Reid, Stephens, and LaMar voted yes. The motion passed. 2.2 Updates from the Planning and Zoning Director Francis Lilly said he gave the Planning Coinmission a different approach on the ordinance presentation and welcomed feedback. Commissioner Stephens said the staff reports this month were excellent. Chair LaMar said a new commissioner, Ian Wright, would be joining next month. He thanked Mark Mumford for his work on the Cornrnission. Lilly said he would invite Mark Mumford to the next meeting to express shared gratitude for his service. 3. Calendar of Upcoming Meetings * City Council Mtg., 7/27/20, 5:00 p.m. at City Hall @ Mt. Olympus Corninunity Council Mtg., 8/4/20, 6:00 p.m. TBD * Millcreek Cornrnunity Council Mtg., 8/4/20, 6:30 p.m. TBD * Canyon Rim Citizens Association Mtg., 8/5/20, 7:00 p.m. TBD * East Mill Creek Community Council Mtg., 8/6/20, 6:30 p.m. TBD * City Council Mtg., 8/10/20, 5:00 p.m. at City Hall * Planning Commission Mtg., 8/19/20, 5:00 p.m. at City Hall ADJOURNED: Commissioner Booth moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:15 p.m. Chair LaMar seconded. Chair LaMar called for the vote. All Commissioners voted yes. The motion passed unanimously. Shawn Chair