Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-17-2015 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes-1- REGULAR MEETING September 17, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00pm by Chairwoman Polk. POSITION MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT No. 1 Tanya Bowers No. 2 Tony Bachart No. 3 Paul Mendez No. 4 Alecia Greenaway No. 5 Joe Cruz No. 6 Loren Polk No. 7 Zahra Khan No. 8 VACANT No. 9 Gabriel Portugal APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS: Chairwoman Polk read a statement about the appearance of fairness for hearings on land use matters. Chairwoman Polk asked if any Commission member had anything to declare. Commissioner Mendez stated that he would need to abstain from MF# PP 2015- 003, Preliminary Plat for Ellie Estates. Chairwoman Polk then asked the audience if there were any objections based on a conflict of interest or appearance of fairness question regarding the items to be discussed this evening. There were no objections. ADMINISTERING THE OATH: Chairwoman Polk explained that state law requires testimony in quasi-judicial hearings such as held by the Planning Commission be given under oath or affirmation. Chairwoman Polk swore in all those desiring to speak. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway that the minutes dated August 20, 2015 be approved. The motion passed unanimously. OLD BUSINESS: A. Special Permit Location of a church in a C-1 (Retail Business) Zone (Bethel Church) (MF# SP 2015-009) Chairwoman Polk read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Shane O’Neill, Planner I, discussed the special permit for the location of a church in a C-1 (Retail Business) Zone. There were no changes to the staff report since the previous meeting. -2- Commissioner Bachart moved, seconded by Commissioner Khan, to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the September 17, 2015 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Bachart moved, seconded by Commissioner Khan, based on the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom the Planning Commissioner recommend the City Council grant a special permit to Bethel Church for the location of a church in the Broadmoor Outlet Mall addressed, 5202 Outlet Drive, with the conditions as contained in the September 17, 2015 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Rezone Rezone from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to R-3 (Medium Density Residential) (Envision Homes) (MF# Z 2015-002) – Re-Opened Chairwoman Polk read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Shane O’Neill, Planner I, discussed the rezone application from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to R-3 (Medium Density Residential). The application is to rezone the 4.25 acres fronting Chapel Hill Boulevard. Mr. O’ Neill explained concomitant agreement had been revised since the previous meeting. The revisions allow one single family detach homes on a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet. There is an added condition to install a landscaping buffer on the south property line, amounting to 2 trees per lot. Lastly, there is an added condition to include 2 retaining walls, 3 ½’ tall, to secure the slope with the required trees planted between the walls. Commissioner Bowers asked if the trees will be planted between the current fence of both properties or will they be on the proposed properties. Mr. O’Neill responded that the idea is that the first retaining wall would be adjacent to the current fencing to secure the lower slope, then 7’ away would be another retaining wall with the trees in between to further stabilize the soil. Commissioner Bachart clarified that they will now be individual homes rather than the originally proposed duplexes and that’s why the housing design standards were removed. Commissioner Greenaway asked who would responsible for maintaining the trees between the retaining walls. Mr. O’Neill answered that one of the conditions states, “… said trees shall be subject to maintenance at a minimum of matured tree height of 20-30’ by the property owner.” Jason Maddox, 6115 Burden Boulevard, of HDJ Design Group, represented Envision Homes. Mr. Maddox explained that with the costs of the improvements necessary to Chapel Hill Boulevard, increasing the amount of units was necessary to make the project cost effective. The original proposal was to possibly allow for duplexes but at the first public hearing there was feedback from the public that was not welcoming of the duplexes and that they preferred to see single-family. Envision Homes went back with Staff and was able to come to an agreement that if the number of lots could incre ase then single- -3- family homes could be built. The applicant has found the current proposed concomitant agreement to be reasonable. The homes will be architectural consistent to the existing homes. The applicant was also agreeable to the landscape buffer requirement as described in condition “C”. There were two additional conditions that came in late – condition “D” and “E”. Condition “E” is somewhat contradictory to Condition “C” because “C” states that the trees are just required to meet the Pasco Municipal Code, where “E” goes on to further state on top of the Pasco Municipal Code there must be a specific height requirement and the trees need to be located between two retaining walls. The most problematic for the developer is the requirement for two retaining walls . Mr. Maddox stated that he understands why Staff has included these conditions and the slope does need to be mitigated. It is more of an erosion problem, not a slope stability problem as the slope was constructed by a contractor to meet the grades. Over time wind has blown sand up the neighbors fencing but constructing retaining walls are not the only way to stop slope erosion problems. The applicant would agree to secure the slope but they feel that there are other means that would be done instead of retaining walls. Mr. Maddox showed two aerial photos of property located one street down from the proposed site and placed them on an overhead for the Commission to view. He pointed out examples of slopes that have been controlled without retaining walls. These slopes have been mitigated with either a rock treatment or planting vegetation to keep the slopes stable and keep the wind from blowing the dust so the applicant doesn’t feel that it is an appropriate measure to condition the project to require the retaining walls be put in. There are also problems in designing retaining walls in which the lo ading is above the wall. The problem with the proposed two retaining walls and trees in between are watering and maintenance of the trees. An engineer is going to have to come in and know the loading above the wall and without knowing what home is built on each w all there is no possible way to design the wall for every case scenario. The applicant requests the Planning Commission revise condition “D” in which Envision Homes shall secure the slope on the south side of the property line. The applicant has no issue with securing the slope, as it is in their best interest, but the manner in which it is requested with two retaining walls, is not an acceptable means to mitigate the erosion. It could be added in that the applicant secure the slope in accordance with the IBC Appendix J, which already addresses how slopes are to be constructed adjacent to homes. Also, if appropriate, the slope could be evaluated by a professional en gineer and a recommendation could be made by a professional engineer on how to secure the slope. Planting trees between two retaining walls are going to become an issue with maintenance. Commissioner Bowers asked how the residents on the lower levels like the slope remediation. Mr. Maddox replied that he has not received any feedback from any of the residents. Dave McDonald, City Planner, responded that he has not heard from any of the residents regarding the slope remediation methods used on the adjacent neighborhood. Commissioner Bowers asked if it was Envision Homes plan from the beginning to do the tiered development. Mr. Maddox answered that when they purchased the property the development had already been started by another developer in which there was already a master grading plan. The only way to make up the grade was by terracing the lots . Anyone that would -4- build a home on these lots should understand that there is a slope in the backyard and it will need to be managed. Keeping in mind, Envision Homes will still have to complete Chapel Hill Boulevard and at the time of completing there are means to continue to control the erosion on the slope, such as silk fencing. Commissioner Bachart asked if Envision Homes would landscape the backyards and address the slope or if it will be left up to the homeowner. Mr. Maddox said it would have to be up to the homeowner because it can’t be done until a home is established. Landscaping could not be controlled until there is irrigation and water. Without landscaping there are means in which to control the erosion on the slope. Commissioner Bachart asked if Envision Homes has reached out to the community to see if this is what they want, such as an agreement. Mr. Maddox answered that there haven’t been any agreements but they have sold all of the lots downhill. They have responded to the community by changing the proposal to single - family homes as opposed to duplexes since it was not received well by the community. Commissioner Portugal asked if Envisions Homes would hire a profession engineer or if the City would hire an engineer to study the slope. Mr. Maddox responded that it would likely be Envision Homes that would hire an engineer since they are the property owner. Chairwoman Polk asked if the applicant would secure the slope at the time the homes were built and then turn the responsibility over to the homeowners after the homes are sold. Mr. Maddox responded that the builder of the homes are going in on a case by case basis to secure the slope and it would likely continue in the same fashion. Commissioner Khan asked if Envision Homes is certain that they will be developing all of the lots themselves and not selling them to another building. Mr. Maddox answered that it is his understanding that it is Envision Home’s intent to develop the lots themselves but it cannot be guaranteed. Commissioner Mendez asked what the average lot size would be in the development even though the minimum is 6,000 square feet and how many lots will be developed. Mr. Maddox responded that it was originally determined that 19 lots could be developed and the rezone would only push it up to 23 lots. The average lot size would likely be larger than 6,000 square feet because there are many irregular shaped lots. Alfonso Sanchez, 5715 Belmont Drive, stated that his biggest concern is securing the slope and retaining walls. Mr. Sanchez also discussed the use of retaining walls on other streets within the development. -5- Commissioner Khan asked Mr. Sanchez asked for clarification on the existing wall and where it is located. Mr. Sanchez answered referred to the aerial photograph on the overhead that Mr. Maddox had presented to show the wall he was referring to and stated that it is a 3’ concrete wall to support the slope. He is concerned that new homeowners won’t be able to afford landscaping or a retaining wall right away and their property would blow onto his fence. Tracie Russell, 5814 Belmont Drive, discussed her concerns with not committing to a retaining wall. When she purchased her home they had a hill in their backyard similar to the hill being discussed. She was told when she moved in that the sloping backyard was secured but it was far from secured and had to spend $6,000 to build a retaining because the backyard was being lost to the neighbor. Mr. McDonald responded that could not happen with the concomitant agreement that will be recorded with the rezone, even if the property changed ownership. With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Portugal asked how one property could be “lost” to another property and if the property lines move. Mr. McDonald answered that the property line itself does not move, however, with erosion the property line could be buried and the slope could drift downhill over the property line into the neighboring property. Commissioner Bachart stated that he understood that requiring a retaining wall places an undue stress on the developer but the fact that there is a precedence on having to put in a retaining wall and some of those rock screens will still slope off. It is a very steep neighborhood and hard to keep up. It is hard for new homeowners to pay for the additional costs of landscaping or retaining walls. The wall wouldn’t need an engineer unless it is over 4’ in height according to code. Mr. Maddox stated that the IBC states that an engineer is required for 3 ½’ in height of the wall. Commissioner Khan stated that she agreed with Commissioner Bachart. She asked Staf f what the reasoning was behind two retaining walls. Mr. O’Neill responded that the soil is already terraced in a two -step fashion and the idea was to provide a flat space for the planting of the trees. Commissioner Khan asked for clarification on the purpose of the trees. Mr. O’Neill answered that the trees were added due to feedback from the property owners at the previous public hearing. The homeowners were concerned because of the elevation difference they didn’t want to feel leered upon by the new homes. Commissioner Bowers stated that with the terraced residents may not have a problem -6- with privacy. Mr. McDonald responded that in the first public hearing there was quite a bit of public concern over the privacy issue with people peering into thei r yards and living rooms. Commissioner Bowers clarified that she remembered that response from the public but wondered if that was from anyone in the lower tiers. Commissioner Greenaway replied that the public feedback came from the neighbors along the bordering fence of the proposed lots. Commissioner Bowers asked if the elevation is steeper in the proposed street than it is on the lower streets. She just wanted to see if the proposal Mr. Maddox presented to secure the slope would be sufficient rather than building retaining walls. Commissioner Khan responded that the concern was with the higher density zoning and the potential for transient neighbors. The existing homeowners wanted more privacy. But with the revised agreement there will be one dwelling per lot so they aren’t as concerned. They do still have the concern of sand blowing in their backyard. Chairwoman Polk asked the Planning Commission if they would like to go down the line and make a decision. Commissioner Portugal stated that he was uncomfortable making a motion as he is not sure if the two retaining walls are necessary. Commissioner Greenaway stated that she is against two retaining walls as it doesn’t make much sense if you don’t know what is going to be built there so you don’t know what kind of retaining wall is needed. Perhaps if it is placed in the agreement that a retaining wall must be added at the time a home is built so it could be placed in the home loan. Commissioner Khan responded that she is for the two retaining w alls since there is no guarantee that Envision Homes is going to be building these homes. Commissioner Bowers stated it was unclear to her if the two retaining walls and the tree buffering is necessary given the fact that there are going to be single-family homes above. She wanted to know from the residents if that is something they still feel they need. The public hearing was re-opened to allow for public comment. Alfonso Sanchez, 5715 Belmont Drive, stated that his property would abut the new development. He would like to see the retaining wall put in when the home is developed to ensure it is done and secured – otherwise it might take too long before they can financially do it. He doesn’t want the sand to impede on his lot or up against his fence causing it eventually to fall down. Commissioner Khan asked Mr. Sanchez if his suggestion is for one retaining wall. -7- Mr. Sanchez answered that he would be happy with one retaining wall as long as it controls the sand and does the job. Commissioner Bachart asked if the tree requirement was still necessary now that the lots would be developed with single-family homes. He stated that he is leaning towards the retaining wall but not necessarily the landscaping requirement. Mr. Sanchez stated they he feels they would all be comfortable with the retaining wall so their fences don’t come down but as for landscaping he could plant is own shrubs or build his own buffer since the main concern was when duplexes were proposed but with single - family homes the landscaping isn’t as big of a concern. Mr. Maddox suggested a condition could require Envision Homes to hire a professional to evaluate the slope and make a recommendation for the best way to stabilize the slope. That doesn’t mean that a retaining wall wouldn’t be built, but a professional would come in first and evaluate the condition of the slope and determine the appropriate means to stabilize that slope. Commissioner Bachart asked who made the decision to build the existing retaining wall that was shown in an aerial photo on the overhead projector. Mr. Maddox responded that he was not aware of who built the existing retaining wall. Jason McConville, 5506 Pimlico Drive, showed a picture of an existing retaining wall of his neighbor’s that has had so much push from this erosion that the wall is bowed. He stated that an engineer would have been helpful in this case have prevented this problem. He said that he is losing some of his yard due to erosion and had to an engineer to look at it and it would cost $16,000 to put in a retaining wall. He discussed the process that will have to done to fix this problem which is very costly for him after building a home. He was told that they would stabilize the slope and they sprayed foam but it only l asted a few months. Commissioner Bowers asked Mr. McConville if his recommended option would be bringing in an engineer to evaluate the slope and determine the appropriate action. Mr. McConvilled responded yes and it really should have been done years ago. Alfonso Sanchez, 5715 Belmont Drive, stated that he would be in favor of an engineer evaluating the slope. With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Portugal asked who would be hiring the engineers. Mr. McDonald replied that the developer would hire the engineer and once their engineer evaluates the slope and comes up with a mitigation plan addressing the slope stabilization, the City would review their findings. Commissioner Bachart stated that there could be recourse when using a hired engineer if -8- the wall or other means fails for not supplying an adequate resource to maintain and stabilize the slope. He said he would be in favor of requiring an engineer to evaluate the slope and each lot would be a case by case basis prior the completion of the home. Commissioner Khan suggested continuing the public hearing and placing that condition into the concomitant agreement. Chairwoman Polk asked the Commissioner’s for their preferred condition; no wall, one wall, two walls or engineering review. The Commissioners were all in agreement for the condition to require an engineering review. Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Portugal, to continue this item to the October 15, 2015 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. B. Special Permit Location of a church in a C-3 (General Business) Zone (Tiempos de Poder Church) (MF# SP 2015-010) Chairwoman Polk read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Jeff Adams, Associate Planner, discussed the special permit application for the location of a church in a C-3 (General Business) Zone. The building is surrounded by an accounting firm, a Union’s Office, a piano service and tax service so there would be very low traffic uses from the surrounding area. The applicant stated that they wish to have up to 30 people at this location. The suite has a maximum occupancy of 135 so their requested use is well under the occupancy limit. They plan to meet Sunday’s, Wednesday’s and Friday’s for approximately 2 hours per session. Due to the size of the building there will be no modifications required for the upgrade from an “M” occupancy to an “A” occ upancy. Mr. Adams briefly went over the conditions in the staff report. Commissioner Portugal asked for clarification on a restroom facility. Mr. Adams answered that there is a restroom facility onsite. Francier Obando Pinillo, 2508 W. Sylvester, spoke on behalf of his special permit application. Jose Montalvo, 2700 E. ‘A’ Street translated for Mr. Pinillo. They stated that they liked this location because it is between two apartment complexes and they were borrowing another church. This will give them a chance to spread hope in this community. Mr. Pinillo briefly discussed the types of activities and uses that they will use in the facility. Commissioner Greenway asked the applicant if he had problems with any of the conditions. Mr. Pinillo responded no. Commissioner Bowers asked where the members currently meet. -9- Dave McDonald, City Planner, replied that they are currently already meeting in the building. With no further questions or comments the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to close the public hearing and schedule deliberations, the adoption of findings of fact, and development of a recommendation for City Council for the October 15, 2015 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. C. Preliminary Plat Preliminary Plat for Sunrise Estates, Division II (Juan Ochoa) (MF# PP 2015-002) Chairwoman Polk read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Shane O’Neill, Planner I, discussed the application for a preliminary plat at Sunrise Estates, Division II. This site is a remaining portion of Sunrise Estates which has already been platted and approved, however, the current phases were not completed within the last 10 years. The preliminary plat has expire d for the remaining 31 lots. The zoning has already been set as R-1-A (Low Density Residential). The minimum lot sizes are 7,200 square feet. The surrounding land uses are mostly vacant but there are a few residential developments nearby to the west and in the existing portion of Sunrise Estates. Utilities will need to be extended to the site. The sewer line has already been installed for a portion. The conditions contained in the staff report are typical of most plats. Juan Ochoa, 812 S. Myrtle Avenue, spoke on behalf of his preliminary plat application. This plat was started years ago but the developer did not finish it and he purchased the land a few months ago with the intent to finish it with the same plans as the original developer. Commissioner Greenaway asked if there was anything in the proposed conditions that caused any problems. Mr. Ochoa responded that he was fine with everything. Commissioner Bachart asked the applicant if he was looking to build homes fairly quickly. Mr. Ochoa answered that he is hoping to start developing the property within a year. Jose Zepeda, 403 S. Cedar Avenue, stated that his property borders this proposed site and wanted to know if there was going to be a cul-de-sac or a different way out that would go past his property. Staff pulled up the proposed preliminary plat on the overhead which showed that there would be a cul-de-sac. Mr. Zepeda was fine with the cul-de-sac. His only other concern was that when the previous phase was built, the contractors use d part of his property as a “dump” site for leftover sod, rock and concrete that he has to go pick up and haul off of his property. -10- Chairwoman Polk responded that they are not supposed to do that so the Code Enforcement Division could get involved if that becomes an issue. Mr. Zepeda said that the issue with involving Code Enforcement is that he isn’t always aware of who is doing the dumping since he is away from home when it happens. Commissioner Khan suggested Staff address that concern. Dave McDonald, City Planner, responded that there is a condition that addresses blowing dust and litter. Language could be added to include construction debris and when the project is built they can emphasize with the builder to be aware and not dump. Mr. Ochoa responded that every lot in the first phase has been completed. Commissioner Greenaway clarified that Mr. Zepeda is just concerned that when the builders are done with this next phase that when the contractors have leftover materials it will be dumped onto his property. She asked Mr. Ochoa if this problem would be taken care of and the builders will not leave their “garbage” in his backyard. Mr. Ochoa agreed with Commissioner Greenaway. Commissioner Bowers asked staff where Phase I is located and for clarification as to where Mr. Zepeda’s property is located. Mr. McDonald responded that it is directly below the proposed plat. He referenced a map on the overhead. Mr. Zepeda also pointed out where his property is located. With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to close the hearing on the proposed preliminary plat and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the October 15, 2015 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. D. Preliminary Plat Preliminary Plat for Ellie Estates (Llya Parkhotyuk) (MF# PP 2015-003) Chairwoman Polk read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, explained that the applicant wished to continue this preliminary plat application to the October meeting to allow more time due to changes from the FDIC and Engineering Department. Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to continue this item to the October 15, 2015 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. E. Preliminary Plat Preliminary Plat for Road 84 Estates (Mission -11- Investments LLC) (MF# PP 2015-004) Chairwoman Polk read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the application for a preliminary plat for Road 84 Estates. This is a rather straight-forward plat containing 16 lots, no slopes or retaining walls to worry about. It is a 10 acre parcel recently annexed into the City and the developers have purchased the property to develop it compatible with the current zoning of RS-20 (Suburban). There was one minor complication relating to where Wernett Road should extend to Road 84. Ideally, We rnett would continue in a straight line from the east to the west but the County allowed the telephone company to place equipment dead center of where the street was supposed to go. One of the solutions was to create a concrete island around the equipment and build the street on either side of the equipment. However, when the two homes to the south were built the County didn’t obtain any right- of-way for the south half of the street so that further complicates things. The developer has spoken with the FCID who controls the road easement and right-of-way for irrigation, along the south side of the property and the FCID has agreed to relinquish the easement as long as they are provided an alternate easement. The developer is proposing to provide an alternate easement and roadway down the center of his development. Roger Wright, 10217 Willow Way, spoke on behalf of the applicant. He clarified that the lot sizes will actually be a bit larger than what is required to justify bringing sewer to the property. He also provided some history on the road easements, right-of-way and confusion with the phone equipment. Some of the nearby residents have expressed that they don’t want Road 80 to be extended through, however, at some point in time it will go from Argent down to Court Street. This development will build roughly 350 feet of the road. He is happy with the conditions in the staff report. With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Bachart, to close the hearing on the proposed preliminary plat and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the October 15, 2015 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. F. Code Amendment Arterial Corridors Commercial Design Standards (MF# CA 2015-003) Chairwoman Polk read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Jeff Adams, Associate Planner, discussed the proposed code amendment to arterial corridors and commercial design standards. This item has come before the Planning Commission several times for input. A public notice was sent to owners of commercial properties in question and on the back of the notice was the area map. The modified language is that on parcels abutting or across a public way from residential zones, the sides and rear of the building adjacent or across the public way from residential zones shall be consistent with the street facing facades of the building in terms of design, style, building materials and architectural themes. This goes along with a recommendation in the memo to the Planning Commission stating that the proposed standards should apply only to the street-facing facades for the properties that are not adjoining residential properties and the sides and rear for properties that adjoin residential properties. All -12- other conditions are listed in the staff memo and proposed ordinance. Dave McDonald, City Planner, stated for the benefit of the audience in attendance the reason behind this code amendment. Late last year or early this year a building permit was issued for a building on Sylvester Street. It has been completed and after it was built there were questions raised as to how the City permitted a building that looks as it does. As a result, the Staff and Planning Commission were charged with reviewing the zoning code to see if there could be some small changes made to ensure that buildings built within the main corridors along the arterial streets had some standards and appearance so they don’t stand out or look unattractive. This would be much like what has been done in the I-182 Corridor. It would require any new building in the proposed area to meet the new standards. Commissioner Khan requested clarification for the “Applicability” in the proposed ordinance that states, “The Design Standards shall apply to all new commercial development and all remodels or expansions where the cumulative cost of remodeling and/or expansion within the last 5 years…” Mr. Adams responded that the “last 5 years” was put in to prevent someone from approaching the threshold with one building permit and then with upgrades later build more upgrades reaching the threshold but bypass the standards. This would create a timeline for these standards to apply. Ford Lane, 2709 W. Sylvester Street, asked for clarification on the proposed changes and how they would affect his mother’s home that is on a commercially zoned lot. Mr. Adams replied that the proposed code amendment would not apply to him as long as the property is a home. George Galloway, 221205 E. Bryson Brown, Kennewick, spoke on behalf of Gesa Credit Union. He explained that they built the building that set off the code amendment . The changes will be substantial. He stated that they did their best with the current building to make it look nice and there is a nice visual barrier to block from the neighboring properties and planted landscaping. He wanted to make sure that any substantial improvements down the road won’t be affected by this code amendment. Alex Emig, 4902 S. Everett Court, asked for clarification on architectural features pertaining to this code amendment. Mr. Adams referenced PMC 25.59.060 as contained in the staff report that included mandatory standards, electrical and mechanical standards and rear of building standards. Commissioner Bowers added that at a prior meeting it was mentioned that in a previous meeting the Lowe’s store was a good example to meeting the design standards as they have faux windows to make the exterior look nicer and not like a box. Commissioner Greenaway asked for clarification for Mr. Galloway of Gesa. Mr. McDonald answered that if they go in just to do electrical work that is handled by L&I -13- so the City wouldn’t be involved. If they remodel structurally or create offices or flooring, building new walls, add bathrooms and it meets the 50% threshold then they would have to bring the building to the new standards. With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Bachart moved, seconded by Commissioner Portugal, the Planning Commission adopt the findings of fact as contained in the September 17, 2015 staff memo on Arterial Corridors Commercial Design Standards. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Bachart moved, seconded by Commissioner Portugal, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council adopt the proposed code amendments for Arterial Corridors Commercial Design Standards as attached to the September 17, 2015 staff memo to the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. COMMENTS: Jeff Adams, Associate Planner, reminded the Planning Commission that there will be a public hearing for the Shoreline Master Program. With no further discussion or business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, David McDonald, City Planner