Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-3-2014 Planning and Zoning CommissionPLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Thursday, April 3, 2014 - 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Iowa City City Hall Emma J. Harvat Hall 410 E. Washington Street AGENDA: A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda D. Comprehensive Plan Item Set public hearing for April 17 for discussion of amending the Comprehensive Plan, Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. to include a section on affordable housing. E. Code Item Discussion of amendments to Article 14-4C of the Zoning Code, to address how accessory uses are regulated in the Riverfront Crossings District, F. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: March 20, 2014 G. Other H. Adjournment Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings Formal: April 17 / May 1 / May 15 Informal: Scheduled as needed. CITY OF IOWA CITY SM -�z �qqw- t � M E M 0 RA N D U M Date: March 28, 2014 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Karen Howard, Associate Planner Re: Amendments to 14-4C, Accessory Uses, to address such uses in the Riverfront Crossings District. In some cases accessory uses are regulated differently in the Riverfront Crossings form -based development standards. We need to amend Article 14-4C of the Zoning Code to address these differences. This memo addresses the regulation of uncovered decks and patios, drive -through facilities, and fences, walls, and hedges. Uncovered Decks and Patios In the Riverfront Crossings development standards, the private frontage area (the area between the building and the street right-of-way) is strictly regulated and must meet the appropriate frontage type standard. Front yard decks are not allowed for any of the frontage types in Riverfront Crossings, so we needed to make this clear in this section of the Article 14-4C. A "patio" is an undefined term in the zoning code, but since several of the frontage types reference a raised area along the frontage that could be considered synonymous with the general understood meaning of the word "patio," we recommend that clarifying language be included in 14-4C that cross references the frontage standards in the Riverfront Crossings code. Fences, Walls, and Hedges The amendments proposed for this section of the code are merely clarifications and cross references to the Riverfront Crossings standards to ensure there is no conflict between these general fence, wall and hedge standards and the new form -based code, particularly as the standards relate to private frontage areas. Drive -Through Facilities In an early draft of the form -based standards for Riverfront Crossings, there was a section regarding drive -through facilities. It was determined since there was so much overlap between the approval criteria for drive-throughs in other zones and the proposed sDecial exception approval criteria for Riverfront Crossings, it was more appropriate to locate the drive -through standards for Riverfront Crossings in the general accessory use article of the zoning code (14- 4C) and update the special exception criteria accordingly. In the attached draft, it specifies that dr.ve-through facilities are allowed only by special exception in Riverfront Crossing's zones. In the more urban subdistricts on the east side of the river drive -through facilities are only allowed for banks and pharmacies and must be located in a manner consistent with the pedestrian - oriented standards that apply in Riverfront Crossings. In the South Gilbert subdistrict drive- throughs are not allowed along frontages that are designated required retail storefronts on the regulating plan or in areas along the new riverfront park. In *he West Riverfront area, drive - through facilities are allowed by special exception, but must comply with the form -based standards in the Riverfront Crossings Code to ensure that these more auto -oriented uses are designed in a manner that is not disruptive to the pedestrian -oriented character we are trying to achieve as redeve�opment occurs. The proposed code language is attached. Underlined text is new language to be added and strike -through notation indicates language to be deleted. Amend 14-4C-2J, Decks and Patios, Uncovered, as follows: Decks and Patios, Uncovered 1. In Residential Zones. a. Uncovered patios and decks constructed 2 feet or less above grade must be set back at least 10 feet from any f, ont or street -side lot line and set back at least 2 f ,eet from any alley right-of-way. No side setback is required. b. Uncovered patios and decks constructed more than 2 feet above grade must be set back at least 10 feet from any front or street -side lot line, at least 5 feet from any side lot line, and at least 2 feet from any ailey right-of-way. 2. In Riverfront Crossings Zones a. Decks are not allowed in nrivate frontaae areas, as defined in Section 14-2G-7A Streetscape and Frontage Area Improvements. b. Patios are not allowed in private frontage areas unless expressly permitted according to the s�andards for the applicable Frontage 1:Ype, as specified in Section 14-2G-4. C. Uncovered patios and decks constructed 2 feet or less above grade must be set back at least 2 feet from any alley ricil-it-of-way. No side setback is required. d. Uncovered patios and decks constructed more than 2 feet above grade must b set back at least 5 feet from any side lot line and at least 2 feet from any alle right-of-way. 3. In all other zones, exeept Residento . a. Uncovered patios and decks must be set back at least 10 feet from any front or street -side lot line and set back at least 2 feet from any alley right-of-way. No side setback is required. b. Decks and patios in any zone where there is no front setback requirement for principal buildings are exempt from the front setback requirement in subparagraph a, above. Amend 14-4C-2K, as follows: K. Drive -Through Facilities 1. Drive -through facilities are allowed according to Table 4C-1, below. Table 4C-1: Drive -Through Facilities Zone Driva*rough facilities allowed Addiflonal requimments ID Zones None permitted i Not applicable Residential Zones None Permitted Not applicable CO-1 Zone Limited to facilities that are accessory to financial Spec,@! exception required, See additional institutions approval criteria listed below, CH-1, CH Zones Dermilled Drive through lanes must be set back at least 10 feet from property lines and must be screened from view of any abutting Residential Zone to the S3 standard (See I Article 14-5F, Screening and Buffering Standards). CN-1 Zone Limited to facilities that are accessory to financial Special exception required, See additional institutions and pharmacies. approval criteria listed below. Maximum of 2 lanes allowed for a financial institution; Maxinnum of 1 lane allowed for a pharmacy CC-2,CB-2, anti Permitted by special exception. Special exception required, See additional Riverfront Croesincis Limitations apply in the Riverfront Crossings approval criteria listed below, Zones Zones, as specified below CB-5, CB-1 0 Zones None permitted I Not applicable 2. Riverfront Crossinois Zones — limitations and restrictions a. In all subdistricts, except for the West Riverfront and South Gilbert subdistricts, drive-throughs are limited to facilities that are accessory to financial institutions and i)harmacies. b. In the South Gilbert subdistrict drive -through facilities are not allowed along frontages designated as required retail storefronts or required Ralston Creek in Figure 2G-1, Riverfront Crossings Regulating Plan. Otherw�se, drive -through facilities are allowed by special exception for any use allowed in the subdistrict. C. In the West Riverfront subdistrict, drive-throurah facilities are allowed by sl)ecial excegtion for any use allowed in the subdistr;ct according to the provisions set forth in this section. d. Principal buildings to which a drive -through is accessory must comply with all standards of the a!2plicaNe Riverf, ont Crossings subdistrict as soecified in Article 14-2G, unless a minor adjustment is approved by the FBC Committee according to the prov;sions in Subsection 14-2G-7H, Minor Adjustments. 3. Special exception approval criteria a. Access and Circulation The transportation Ws'ern should be capable of safely sul2porting the proposed drive -through use in addition to the existina uses in the area. Evaluation factors include street caDacitv and level of service. effects on traffic circulation. access reguirements, separation of curb cuts, and Pedestrian safety in addition to the following criteria. (1) Wherever possible and practical, drive -through lanes shall be accessed from seconclan� streets, alleys, or shared cross access drives. If the applicant can demonstrate that access from a secondary street, aligy, o shared cross access drive is not vossible, the Board may grant access to a prima[y street, but may impose conditions such as limiting the width of the curb cut and drive, limiting the number of lanes, reauiring the drive - through bays and stacking lanes to be enclosed within the building envelope, and similar conditions. (2) To provide for safe Pedestrian movement, the number and width of curb cuts serving the use may be limited. A proposal for a new curb cut on any street is subject to the standards and restrictions in Article 14-5C, Acces Management Standards. (3) An adequate number of stacking spaces must be orovided to ensure traffic safeW is not compromised. A minimum of 6 stacking spaces is recommended for drive -through facilities associated with eatno establishments and a minimum of four stacking spaces for banWing, pharmacies, and similar non-food related drive -through facilities. Stacking spaces shall be defined as being 20 feet in length and the width of a one - lane, one-way drive. The Board may reduce the recommended number of stacking spaces if the applicant can demonstrate that the specMc business has unique characteristics such that the recommended number of parking sl2aces is excessive (i.e. a drive -through that is to be used for pick-up only and not ordering). (4) Sufficient on -site signage and pavement markings shall be provided to indicate direction of vehicular travel, r)edestrian crossings, stop signs, no entrance areas, and other controls to ensure safe vehicular and oedestrian movement. b. Location (1) In the CB-2 Zone and in all subdistricts of the Riverfront Crossings District located east of the Iowa River, drive-throucih lanes and service windows must be located on a non -street -facing fagade. In all other locations where drive-throughs are allowed, this location standard must be met, unless the applicant can demonstrate that a street- facing location is preferable for the overall safety and efficiency of the site, does not conflict with adjacent uses or Pedestrian access, and does not compromise the character of the streetscaoe or neighborhood in which it is located. (2) Drive -through lanes must be set back at least ten feet (10') from adjacen lot lines and public rights of way and screened from view according to th design standards below. C. Desicin Standards The number of drive -through lanes, stacking spaces, and paved area necessa for the drive through facilily will not be detrimental to adjacent residential Properties or detract from or unduIV interruDt Declestrian circulation or the commercial character of the area in which the use it is located. The Board of Adjustment may increase br reduce these standards according to the circumstances affecting the site. (1) To promote comoatibility with surrounding development, the number o (2) Drive -through lanes, bays, and stacking spaces shall be screened from views from the street and adjacent properties to the S2 standard. If the drive -through is located adiacent to a residential use or property zoned residential, it must be screened from view of these woperties tO at least the S3 standard. To Preserve the Pedestrian -oriented character of streets in the CB-2 Zone and the Riverfront Crossings District, the Board may require the drive -through to be incorporated within the buldna or be grincipal building on the site. (3) amount of idling on the site. (4) Stacking spaces, driveways, and drive -through windows shall be located to minimize potential for vehicular and pedest-ian conflicts and shall be intecirated into the surrounding landscape and streetscape design of the neighborhood in which it is located. (5) Lighting for the drive -through facility must comply with the outdoor licihting standards set forth in A-ticle 14-5G and must be designed to prevent ligh trespass and glare onto neighboring residential properties. (6) All signage for the drive -through must meet the sign standards in Article 14-5B. (7) Loudspeakers or intercom Wstems, if allowed, should be located and directed to minimize disturbance to adiacent uses. Special consideration should be given to locations adjacent to residental uses to ensure such systems do not diminish the residential character of the neighborhood. Amend 14-4C-2L, as follows: L. Fences, Walls, and Hedges 1. Permit Required. A permit is required for all of the following: a. Electric fences; b. Barbed wire fences; C. Any fence or wall over 6 feet in height; d. Any retaining wall over 4 feet in height measured from the top of the footing to the top of the wall; and e. A retaining wall of any height that supports a surcharge or impounds flammable liquids. 2. Location and Height Requirements. All fences, walls, and hedges located within a principal building front, side, or rear setback area or within 5 feet of a lot line, are subject to the following location and height requirements. a. Except as otherwise allowed or required in Article 14-2G, Riverfront Crossings Form -based Development Standards, no portion of a fence or wall more than 10 percent solid shall exceed eight feet in height. The solidity is the percent of the fence over a random area which is made up of solid, opaque material, and which does not allow light or air to pass through. Retaining walls are exempt from the provisions of this subparagraph. b, Fences, walls, and hedges must be set back at least 2 feet from any alley or street right-of-way line. C. On corner lots, fences, walls, and hedges over 2 feet in height must comply with the provisions of Article 14-513, Intersection Visibility Standards. d. Fences and walls that exceed 4 feet in height are not permitted in the principal building, front setback area on properties zoned Residential or on properties located within 50 feet of any property along the same frontage that is zoned Residential. However, this height limit is increased to 6 feet for lots with frontages along an expressway or an arterial street, provided that the lot is a double frontage lot or a reversed corner lot. Retaining walls are exempt from the provisions of this subparagraph. C. In Riverfront Crossincis Zones, fences and walls located within Drivate frontacie areas are strictly reciulated and, if allowed, must comi)lv with the armlicable Frontage Type standards as specified in 14-2G. Barbed wire and electric fences are subject to the following regulations. a. Barbed wire consists of twisted wires with barbs on each wire. The barbs on each wire must be at least 4 inches apart. Any barbed wire that doesn't meet this description is prohibited. Concertina wire is prohibited. b. Except when used for the enclosure of livestock associated with an allowed Agriculture Use, barbed wire fences are permitted only in the Commercial, Industrial, and Research Zones, provided the bottom strand of barbed wire is not less than six feet above grade. Except for the enclosure of livestock associated with an allowed Agriculture Use, electric fences are not permitted in any zone. d. No electric fence shall C2rry a charge greater than 25 milliamperes nor a pulsating current lower than one -tenth second in a one second cycle. All electric fences must carry the seal of an approved testing laboratory. el Barbed wire and electric fences are prohibited within 5 feet of a ' public sidewalk or within 4 leet of a street right-of-way line where a public sidewalk does not exist. in the latter case, however, a barbed wire or electric fence may be installed or constructed along the right-of-way line if the property owner agrees to move the fence back the required distance within 2 months after the installation of a public sidewalk. Said agreement must be submitted with the application for a fence permit. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 20 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Phoebe Martin, Jodie Theobald. John Thomas MEMBERS ABSENT: Paula Swygard STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Doug Boothroy, Jann Ream, Sara Greenwood Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: Sally Scott, Tracey Achenbach RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: The Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of amendments to Title 14, Zoning, Chapter 5 Site Development Standards, Article B, Sign Regulations to: 1) change the standards for projecting signs and to allow them in all commercial zones, 2) to allow canopy roof signs in all commercial zones and to clarify the size provisions and 3) to regulate temporary window signs and the placement of permanent window signs in required storefront windows. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM Freerks introduced Doug Boothroy, who as the recently appointed Director of the newiy formed Department of Neighborhood and Development Services explained the recent, new organizational chart for the department. Freerks said that she noticed that the name planning is no longer in the departments name and asked for assurance that planning for long term goals as well as development and neighborhood services is still what the City has in mind. Boothroy explained that he has training and background in Planning. He served as Senior Planner for many years and worked closely with the Planning and Zoning Commission. He also served as the president of the Iowa Chapter of the American Planning Association. He stated that comprehensive planning and current planning will still have the same importance. He explained that Neighborhood Services will comprise many elements of planning. Eastham requested that the City provide more Planning staff. Boothroy said he understands Eastham's desire to get more staff to get the Comprehensive Plan working as soon as possible. Eastham asked if this reorganization implies anything in terms of changes in the City's approach to land use regulation and planning. Boothroy responded that Neighborhood and Development Services will be viewed by the City as a higher priority than it has been in the past in terms of Code enforcement but he sees no change in planning activities and subdivision reviews. He said he does hope that bringing the Planning and Building Inspection departments together will Planning and Zoning Commission March 20, 2014 Page 2 of 7 improve customer service with home builders and other groups that in the past have not been very positive about the City's planning efforts. Thomas said that the Sustainability Report of 2013 showed that in the category of Housing most of the measurable items were defined as unclassified, and he asked Boothroy if he sees that as something that needs addressed. Boothroy said he would be meeting with Brenda Nations, the Sustainability Coordinator, to discuss that. Thomas said he was happy to see in the restructuring that sustainability is more integrated and hopes that sustainability emphasis will be applied to the stability of the neighborhoods. Boothroy replied that is the City's goal. Eastham stated his hopes that this restructuring will be better for measuring outcomes for some of the more pressing planning and rezoning approaches the City is taking, particularly those that relate to achieving actual mixed income neighborhoods. Boothroy said the City is not tracking those factors right now, and they need to be thinking of how they can do that. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. Zoning Code Items Discussion of amendments to Title 14, Zoning, Chapter 5 Site Development Standards, Article 13, Sign Regulations to: 1) change the standards for projecting signs and to allow them in all commercial zones, 2) to allow canopy roof signs in all commercial zones and to clarify the size provisions and 3) to regulate temporary window signs and the placement of permanent window signs in required storefront windows. Miklo introduced Jann Ream, who reviews most sign permits. Ream showed pictures of examples of all the kinds of signs addressed in the proposed amendment, said that currently projecting signs are allowed on a very limited basis, are only allowed downtown, can be no more than six square feet and can't be illuminated. She said she has found that those restrictions have stifled good designs and creativity for these signs and thinks that with new technology, it's time to loosen some of the restrictions, allowing a maximum size of twelve square feet, placement in all commercial zones, and a bit more illumination. Ream said they are also proposing changing the limitation of the top of the sign to the top of the first floor to between the first and second floor for hotels, indoor theaters and bowfing alleys Eastham asked if increasing the area of the sign increases the hazard of the sign in wind. Jann pointed out the very strict mounting requirements in the chart provided to Commission members and said that the sign has to go through strict design review, and the proposed size is not large enough to create hazards. Ream explained that more and more canopy signs are being incorporated into modern commercial development, and they make a very good sign option, with opportunities for good design. Ream returned to the projecting sign discussion to explain that they are proposing one very specific circumstance where a sign over twelve square feet would be allowed: a commercial building whose first story is a minimum of eighteen feet from grade to top of the first story would be allowed to increase to an eighteen square foot canopy or projecting sign to be more in proportion to that size of building. Planning and Zoning Commission March 20, 2014 Page 3 of 7 Ream said in the past temporary signs in windows were never regulated but she showed a photograph of an example on Gilbert Street that illustrates the need for new regulations. She said the regulations of these types of signs will only be applied to those areas where there are required storefront windows. Freerks asked for clarification. Ream said in the Central Business Service (CB-2), Central Business Support (CB-5) and Central Business (CB-1 0) zones and certain areas of Riverfront Crossings a certain percentage of the fagade is required to be in windows or doors, and where windows are required they must allow a view to the business inside. Ream said for all intents and purposes window clings are permanent, and the City will consider these as window signs, and if it's a required storefront window, these clings will only be allowed to take up twenty-five percent of the window. She said the current window signs will probably be grandfathered and not be required to be taken down. Thomas asked if the proposed amendment will control the size of the imagery on the signs. Ream said that with the First Amendment, the City can't control imagery or wording. Greenwood Hektoen said that when the event that the signs are featuring or advertising is over, the business will have to take them down, and the grandfathering would end at that point. Ream said once this is adopted she will need to reach out to the businesses and explain the new regulations and also work with the Downtown Association. Freerks opened public discussion. Freerks closed public discussion. Thomas moved to recommend approval of the three amendments to the Sign Ordinance as it applies to the staff report. Eastham seconded. Freerks said it's been several years since any major changes in sign regulations have been made. She said technology has changed, and the way people use technology has an effect on the community and how the buildings work with pedestrians and that's important to the items that have been outlined in the Code and the way people are required to build things. She said she thinks this will help address some of the issues that have arisen in the past few years. She said she supports some flexibility to allow some more creative sign usage and she thinks these amendments are a job well done. Eastham said he thinks the first two provisions do add opportunities that aren't in the Code now. He said he wonders about the intentions of the business owners in the example presented with putting signage in their windows. Ream said in her conversations with business owners about signage, a lot of it has to with economics, as the more traditional ways of advertising are expensive. She said she understands that, but this is community landscape and there should be a good balance and a way to maintain the storefronts and still allow business owners some flexibility to use the windows to advertise. Ream said that because these temporary signs aren't regulated at all, Planning and Zoning Commission March 20, 2014 Page 4 of 7 they are allowed a tremendous amount of signage covering the fagade that wouldn't be allowed under the Code for a permanent sign. Theobald asked if there is an incentive from the distributors. Ream said that these signs are provided at no charge to the business owner. Freerks said that with less window area covered, the interaction between the store and the pedestrians will be different but there will still be the opportunity to advertise. Eastham said the signage in some cases has gone well over the balance point. Thomas said you can see that it has spiraled out of control. He said he thinks a nice window display or being able to see well what's inside would be more likely to draw in pedestrians than would be these billboard type signs. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0. Discussion of Riverfront Crossings District Form -Based Code and proposed regulation of noise levels. Miklo said while the Commission was reviewing the Form -Based Code there was a proposal to incorporate regulation of noise based on the Smart Code, which uses a decibel reading. He said after research, it was found that is not an easy task or the most effective way to address the concern raised about commercial vents, as there are variables that make measuring noise difficult. He said the City used to have decibel levels in the Noise Ordinance, and it was found to be difficult to regulate and enforce. Other methods are being investigated, such as requiring commercial to vent to the roof. Staff is recommending that the Commission does not propose the Smart Code but continue to explore these other alternatives. Eastham asked how the lighting standards are measured and enforced. Miklo said it's done through design review before the lights are installed, and if there are complaints after the lights are installed there is a meter that can measure whether it exceeds the foot candles, the measurement permitted by the Code. Miklo said he's not sure if there are the same kinds of industry standards for noise as there are for lighting. Freerks opened public discussion. Freerks closed public discussion. Theobald moved to reconsider the previous recommendation to include the Smart Code provisions regarding regulation of noise in the Riverfront Crossings Code. Eastham seconded. Eastham said he's comfortable with the method of addressing noise described by staff rather than including the smart code noise provisions in the Riverfront Crossings Form Based Code. He said the new approach particularly with staff looking at potential noise sources and regulating those in the design of the building and attempting to see if that's a feasible way of Planning and Zoning Commission March 20, 2014 Page 5 of 7 reducing noise that's coming from uses within the building where those uses are fairly standard and predictable. Theobald said she can see the merits of prevention, but she said there are things you don't expect that create noise. Thomas said he agrees that prevention is the way to go. He said he's concerned that there may be noise sources that still may pose a problem. Eastham said he thinks this would helpful for business owners, as some violations of Code would be expensive to fix. Freerks said she's concerned about current issues and making sure that something that might truly be a problem not become grandfathered and stay that way. She said she hopes there could be mediation or some sort of problem solving in those circumstances while of course looking toward the future to see how to change things in a positive way. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0. Comprehensive Plan item Discussion of amending the Comprehensive Plan, Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan, to include a section on affordable housing. Miklo reminded the Commission that at their February 6th meeting they agreed to meet again and discuss this in more detail. He said their packets contain information on how affordable housing is covered in both the Comprehensive Plan and the Central District Plan, which cover the area also included in the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. He said if the Commission decides to make changes in the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan, they will need to set a public hearing. Eastham asked if all provisions in the Central, Southwest, Riverfront Crossings and Downtown District Plans apply to wherever the plans overlap. Miklo replied that provisions would apply when they are consistent, and he doesn't believe there are any inconsistencies. Freerks opened public discussion. Sally Scott of 205 Black Springs Circle, Chair of Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity Board and member of Johnson County Affordable Homes Coalition, said in the Downtown/Riverfront Crossings Plan the only reference to affordable housing is in the Gilbert Street district, which only comprises 92 units, out of a projected 2400 units. She said this Plan needs to include language that makes clear affordable housing is a priority for the district as a whole. She said as the development gets closer to becoming reality, she believes there needs to be a commitment to affordable housing not just as an option for the area but as a definite feature for the area. She said there will not be opportunity like this for years to come, and if affordable housing is not part of this large area of town, an important opportunity will have been missed. Scott said the Coalition wants affordable housing to be clarified in the Master Plan and supported. Tracey Achenbach of 727 Rundell Street, Executive Director of the Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County said that her group will want to see more specific language about affordable housing. She said this is too great an opportunity not to take advantage of for the community. Planning and Zoning Commission March 20, 2014 Page 6 of 7 Freerks closed public discussion Eastham said he would like to consider staff's revised language as a potential amendment to the Riverfront Crossings Plan, but he's not sure he wants to support an amendment to the Downtown District Plan, but he doesn't know if there's a way to separate them. Freerks said she completely supports putting something like this forward, but she's hesitant to put specifies with percentages and goals into the Master Plan. She said the Commission deals with framework and incentives at this stage, and she probably wouldn't support language that is very specific with percentages, as she considers that the realm of City Council. She said she thinks the whole county needs to take a look at this, and although the Commission can look at pieces, it needs to be taken as a whole, which is why going to City Council and having them go further for all quality of life issues and affordable housing is important. Thomas said he would support this going forward. He said in terms of potential language that staff has proposed he suggested that they strike "City -assisted projects". Dyer asked if the staff proposed language is the limit of the language the Commission could approve. Miklo said that would only be the initial language, if the Commission agrees to move forward. A vote was taken and the Commission agreed 6-0 to set a public hearing on April 3rd for this item on April 17 Ih. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: February 3 and February 20, 2014 Eastham moved to approve the minutes of February 3, the minutes of the informal meeting of February 20, and with corrections, the minutes of the formal meeting of February 20. Theobald seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0. Other Adjournment Eastham moved to adjourn. Thomas seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2013-2014 FORMAL MEETING NAME TERM EXPIRES 7/18 8/1 8/15 9/5 10/3 10/17 11/7 11/21 12/5 12/19 1/2 1/16 2/6 2/20 3/20 DYER,CAROLYN 05/16 X X X O/E X O/E X X X X X O/E X X X EASTHAM, CHARLIE 05/16 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X FREERKS,ANN 05/13 X X X X O/E X O/E X X X X X X X X MARTIN, PHOEBE 05/17 X X X X X O/E X X O/E X X X X X X SWYGARD, PAULA 05/15 X I O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X O/E THEOBALD, JODIE 05/18 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X THOMAS, JOHN 05/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X WEITZEL, TIM 05/13 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- INFORMAL MEETING NAME TERM EXPIRES 3/4 4/01 4/15 9/19* 1/2 1/13 2/3 2/20 DYER,CAROLYN 05/16 X X X X X X X X EASTHAM, CHARLIE 05/16 X X X X X X X X FREERKS,ANN 05/13 X O/E X X X X X X MARTIN, PHOEBE 05/17 X X X X X O/E X X SWYGARD, PAULA 05/15 X X X X X X X THEOBALD, JODIE 05/18 --- --- --- X X X X THOMAS, JOHN 05/15 X X X X X X WEITZEL, TIM 05/13 X X X KEY: X = Present 0 = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused = Not a Member = Work Session