ZTA-2008-00002 Amendments to PD & NMD Regulations
The request is to amend regulations for Planned Districts and Neighborhood Model Districts to modify the grandfather clause, provide clarification on requirements, update titles in accord with County reorganization, and change architectural requirements.
Ms. Echols presented a power point presentation and explained the staff report. (See power point presentation and staff report)
· In summary, the Planning Commission held a work session on ZTA-2008-00002, Amendment to PD & NMD Regulations. On April 22, 2008, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution of intent to begin work on changes to the Planned District regulations to require that site plans and subdivision plats permitted under old planned development zoning comply with current rather than “old” regulations that existed at the time of rezoning approval. The resolution also noted that some “clean-up” of Sections 8 and 20A would be provided, as well. The Commission asked for a roundtable discussion on the proposal to get input on the proposed changes as well.
· Staff recommends that the Commission review the content of the proposed changes. If the Commission believes that the changes appropriately address the issues raised by the Commission and staff, then the staff will schedule a roundtable meeting with the development community. Staff will include any recommended changed to parking studies with the ordinance amendment brought to the Commission.
· The proposed changes are in the staff report, which would require current regulations to be applied to Planned Districts where no vesting has occurred, to bring the staff titles in line with the current titles in Community Development where there is some decision making authority, to remove redundancy, make clarifications and consistency in the requirements, to modify the requirements for detailed architectural information and to add a special use permit option for the Code of Development where the applicant may not be able to anticipate conditions. Not included in the staff report, but proposed, staff wants to bring something else back to the Commission that is to make the required parking study in the Neighborhood Model District optional rather than mandatory. Because so many of the Neighborhood Model Districts have so much flexibility built into the uses it is really hard to know what the parking requirements are going to be at the rezoning level. Some of these Neighborhood Model Districts are fairly tightly defined and there is knowledge about what the parking needs would be.
· There needs to be more work done on one part of what staff has given the Commission with regards to vesting and variations. On page 9 of the staff report in item 6 of Attachment C, there is some proposed language variations to applicable requirements where the Planned Development was approved under prior zoning and subdivision regulations. At the time the site plan or subdivision plat is reviewed under current applicable zoning and subdivision regulations and the applicable requirement cannot be satisfied without amending the application plan, the variation shall be only to the extent necessary to allow the site plan or plat to be approved without amending the application plan. No requirement may be varied to a standard below that in effect when the Planned Development was approved. This is one that the County Attorney’s Office wants to provide some additional information on at a later date. That section may need to be modified somewhat because they want to make sure that there is no conflicts between approved Planned District zonings and what a variation might be allowed by the Planning Director. Therefore, that one is not totally settled and staff will bring some information back.
· Staff has not published this greatly because they wanted to get Planning Commission input first. Several regular applicants have contacted staff about this. One applicant has suggested that the Neighborhood Model District sign regulations be modified with this amendment to allow for commercial signage that is consistent with commercial signage in the other zoning districts. The Neighborhood Model is a mixed district and has commercial aspects and residential aspects. For example, the Albemarle Place Mixed Use Development would like to have signage that is consistent with what they allow for commercial zoning districts elsewhere in the Zoning Ordinance rather than be restricted to signs of a residential size. By and large staff supports this request and thinks that is something they could include in this packet. Also, staff has heard from the development community that they want it to be included. Staff totally agrees with that request.
Mr. Strucko questioned if the signs in the Neighborhood Model District are going to be the same size as the signs in a commercial district.
Ms. Echols replied that there are different types of signage for commercial uses. Staff is hearing from the public that they would like to have commercial uses in a Neighborhood Model District to have the same area of signage that is allowed for commercial uses in commercial districts. This is something that staff would like to bring back to the Commission.
Mr. Strucko pointed out that he would like to understand what the impact of that would be. He questioned if it would be a billboard or something similar. He noted that this was not a commercial district, but a Neighborhood Model District. Therefore, he may be concerned about that.
Mr. Loach echoed Mr. Strucko’s concern.
Ms. Echols said that it was on the order of magnitude of a 48 square foot sign versus a 36 square foot sign. It is not a huge different. Staff would want to bring that back in its entirety so that the Commission could consider including that with this set of amendments.
Mr. Edgerton said that he shared the other Commissioner’s concerns. He would keep an open mind, but only wanted to see it back as part of this if they can really fully vet it.
Ms. Echols noted that staff’s recommendation is for the Commission to review the packet information, to ask any questions about the changes in wording and provide input. After that staff will schedule a round table discussion with the development community. That input would be brought back to the Planning Commission for review and input. The public hearing would be set and then Mr. Kamptner would draft the final version of the ordinance. The public hearing would be held and the Commission would make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Edgerton suggested that the round table discussion be held in the form of a work session where the Commission could hear the input from the development community.
Ms. Echols replied that it could be done as a work session and would actually be easier for staff.
Mr. Morris opened the public hearing and invited public comment.
Neil Williamson, with Free Enterprise Forum, thanked staff for coming forward with bringing the development community into the loop. He encouraged the Commission to reach out to the commercial community in the mixed use/neighborhood model. In the discussions of DISC II the commercial aspect of this is a vibrant part of the Neighborhood Model. They need to give every opportunity for that commercial district to succeed and be on a level playing field with the other commercial districts in the county, which generates the signage issue. He asked the Commission to discuss the format of a work session/round table with the development community. The benefits of a round table are that the folks are able to comment back and forth rather than having three minutes to comment and an opportunity to sit down. He felt that there is an opportunity here to really talk with the folks that are implementing it to find out the challenges with the projects in order to clean up the language. He hopes they can find a middle ground on the signage that allows the businesses to succeed. He thanked the Planning Commission for considering the entire community because the residential and the commercial aspects are important parts of the Neighborhood Model.
Valerie Long, attorney speaking on behalf of her clients, expressed her appreciation to the staff for the very helpful memo that explained the changes. She reviewed the memo and the vast majority of the changes are all very positive. She looks forward to working with the staff to address and fine tune some of those and provide some comment. She echoed Mr. Williamson’s comments about the benefits of a round table discussion with the development community. The ones she has participated in the past have been some of the most productive and collaborative discussions on a number of different topics from the subdivision ordinance to the wireless telecommunication policy over the years. It is really an opportunity for people to sit around, roll up their sleeves and have some give and take. It is the give and take between staff and the development community that is really so valuable. She asked that the Commission keep an open mind about a round table. She thinks that it is very productive. They are more than willing to share their comments with the Commission as well. But, Mr. Williamson is right that sometimes just speaking for three minutes and not having that give and take is not nearly as effective as a round table. Usually they come to consensus on a lot of issues and can come back to the Commission with that information. They appreciate the Commission taking the time to look at it.
Mr. Morris asked what time she would recommend holding the work session or round table since they want maximum turn out.
Ms. Long replied that the afternoon might be the most likely to result in a large turn out by the most number of people. It is important to get as many people participating as possible. But, she would suggest getting staff’s opinion on that.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that late afternoon would work best for the community. One approach they could take was to hold the round table as planned and any Commissioner could attend. He suggested that if the Commission wanted to participate, then they need to adjourn to that meeting. Otherwise, if they were just interested in hearing the discussion between staff and the various participants from the public and development community he did not think they need to adjourn to it.
Mr. Davis recommended that if three of more Commissioners were going to be in attendance that they adjourn to that meeting rather than just being observers.
Mr. Edgerton said that by law the Planning Commission has to have a public session if there are more than two Commissioners together at one time. He would welcome the opportunity to possibly change the format of the work session so that it would allow for more comfortable conversation. He would hope that the Commission would be able to participate in a discussion with the development community. The Commission needs to understand first hand what the development community’s needs are, but at the same time the development community needs to hear the Commissioner’s concerns as well. Rather than having those meetings separate, as has been done in the past, it would be a healthier experience to have this as a public forum where everybody can participant. If that means changing the structure, he would welcome the opportunity of changing the structure and not limiting people to certain specified times the way they do now.
Mr. Morris agreed and that it can be worked out. He suggested that they use room 241 or Fifth Street so they would have a large area.
Mr. Loach suggested that staff contact groups like the Crozet Advisory Board, Places 29 and the Glenmore Master Plan. Essentially, these are the people who are going to be living with the changes that they are talking about. If staff thinks that it is substantial enough they need to make sure that they get the word out to those people. Also, hopefully they can send some documentation out before hand in words that everybody is going to understand so that they can react to those.
Mr. Morris invited other public comment. There being none, he closed the public hearing to bring the matter before the Planning Commission for discussion and action.
Ms. Echols noted that Bill Fritz and the Current Development staff support the proposed changes. They don’t want the Commission to think that they enjoy the process of using the old regulations since it is very time consuming and a difficult process to go through.
Ms. Porterfield questioned how the Clifton Lake proposal would be affected by this.
Mr. Davis replied that is the type of development that would be impacted by this. Instead of having the automatic option to go under the old rules there would have to be an evaluation as to whether or not they have established vested rights under state law. Ms. Echols’ memo identified the statute of the test that basically has to be met. So they would have to evaluate whether or not there was a substantial governmental act, whether or not that has been relied upon and whether or not there has been due diligence in expenditures of funds to advance that approval. In some of the old cases that test may not be met and they would have to comply within the current regulations under this ordinance. For most other developments that have actual active plans, probably almost in every instance, they would be vested and would still have the option to choose to act under the zoning that was in effect at the time that they were approved. The extent of the effect of this is going to depend upon how many existing planned developments are out there that have not basically begun.
Mr. Morris asked Ms Porterfield if that answered her question.
Ms. Porterfield said that it sounds like under that particular issue staff would have to evaluate specifics from the applicant to show the vesting.
Mr. Davis replied that is correct in a development that is already being brought forward in which they were now advancing the application and they would have to analyze whether or not it would impact that development.
Mr. Edgerton asked staff if they have covered everything except the parking mentioned. He asked when that would be done since they had been waiting for that.
Ms. Echols replied that there are different ways to deal with the parking. One would be just to add that there is an option here. Another way would be to establish a new parking standard for mixed use districts. Staff has not done that. It is something that the zoning administrator thinks would be a very good idea. Right now if they want to move this quickly staff would put it in the optional category and they could be working on it. She did not know how quickly that could be brought back. Staff could bring the sign information to the Commission fairly quickly because there are people who have already been working on amending Neighborhood Model Districts. But, the other issue may take a little more time.
Mr. Edgerton questioned if that was the reason for some of staff’s recommendations that were not part of the staff report that came up on the screen that the parking plan be made optional.
Ms. Echols replied yes.
Mr. Edgerton noted that he was nervous about making a parking plan optional for a community of this scale. Perhaps until they are able to work out a particular parking requirement for a Neighborhood Model they could as an alternative make it optional and at least have the applicant show the worse case scenario of the parking. They are not going to know and it may change with the market. But, it would be a shame to think that they might be including commercial and not have enough space for the parking with the plan they look at. Rather than leaving it out and not thinking about it maybe they could as an interim step have the applicant show a worse case scenario for parking so that they would not be kidding ourselves to approve a plan thinking that they are going to get something that they could not possibly get because there was not enough space for parking. That would be one example. He asked if that is something that could be worked on.
Ms. Echols replied that is something that they could talk about. What staff originally thought with the Neighborhood Model District is that there would be greater clarity in the uses that were going to occur in a Neighborhood Model District so that an applicant could get a pretty good handle on what that mix was going to be so that when they provided a parking study it was realistic enough that the zoning administrator felt comfortable to be able to recommend approval of it. What has happened with a number of the Neighborhood Model Districts, such as Rivanna Village at Glenmore, Biscuit Run and North Pointe, which is a planned district, when they have gotten the list of possible uses that could occur in those districts they are so broad that the zoning administrator has a real difficult time saying yes this parking study is realistic. The applicants just don’t know what kind of use they are going to get. For example, Berkmar Business Park has 275,000 square feet, which is a maximum amount that they would be asking for plus 190 units. They don’t know if they are going to be doing 190 units. They don’t know if they are going to be doing any units. The kinds of uses they put in their Code could be something like a light warehousing for documents, which requires very little parking, to a restaurant, which requires a great deal of parking.
Mr. Edgerton suggested that they could be done in an average. He noted that it was not good planning to just leave the door wide open for any use, show a plan that they all hammer out and then find out later after they decide their use that they don’t have enough space for it and can’t do that. He would like to avoid a lot of confusion in the planning process as opposed to having the zoning administrator make this determination case by case. As projects are developed in phases this would be important to get hammered out as much as possible before hand.
Ms. Monteith suggested rather than an average to use a range based on the proposed uses.
Mr. Morris said that was a good point.
Mr. Edgerton agreed. He noted that the third paragraph mentions bringing titles of staff in line with current titles used in Community Development, which means that some titles have changed. In the middle of the paragraph it mentions administering architectural standards. Staff is making the case for the difficulty in establishing the architectural standards at the early stage. It says the applicants for building permits have not always provided the information that the Codes say will be provided. He questioned why staff would accept that as a completed application if it was missing something that was required. He asked why that would ever happen.
Ms. Echols replied that it happens when people submit less than all of the information because properties get sold and builders come in with their building plans and there has been some kind of failure in communication between the sellers and the buyers. The builders are coming in with the building permits wanting immediate action on a building permit and staff has to go back and get all of this information and analyze it. The applicant should be providing the information with the building permit applications. Staff has found from a practical standpoint that they can spend a lot of time trying to get that together.
Mr. Edgerton said that an applicant comes in to get something rezoned and they promise A, B and C. Then they sell it to a second developer and forget to tell them that they promised A, B and C. So now the second developer comes in and says that they did not know that they were required to do that. Does staff feel that the county should take responsibility for straightening that out?
Mr. Cilimberg noted that it was staff’s responsibility in reviewing the permit to make sure that it does satisfy A, B and C. If it does not, then the permit would be rejected. So that really is not the issue. The issue is the judgment that has to be rendered regarding architectural designs where they don’t have staff that can really review the architectural nuances to say yes it does or does not meet the architectural intention in the application as it was approved. Staff feels like it is at the level of detail that they really don’t have the staff that has the judgment from the architectural standpoint to say that is the architecture that the Code said would be provided. Staff wonders if that is critical anyway. He questioned if they are trying to get too much in a Code regarding architecture. It is like the discussion last week on using the Secretary of the Interior Standards and passing judgment on that and the Commission questioned why are they doing that. This is really about not including in the Code requirements regarding architecture that they don’t have staff that can really judge. It is probably not in the public’s general interest to have staff rendering on these issues one way or the other, which would make the process work more smoothly. It is not about the ability to accept or not accept the permits. Staff can reject permits and they do when they don’t meet the requirements of A, B and C. It is really about whether A, B and C is needed to begin with. That is what it is really about. Architectural standards are something that has been included in Codes to the degree that has gone far beyond what they even have the professional ability to judge. That is really what this is about.
Ms. Echols said that some of the Codes get down into the details about what the different colors on the building will be and a lot of the details the ARB would be quite interested in, but they don’t have things that they are evaluating those against. When they look at the Code of Development regarding architecture, staff’s ability to look at that for what is going to look good does not exist. But, what they are looking for are the things that the ordinance requires and whether it is something staff can judge when they get a building permit. Staff does not have the guidelines similar to what the Architectural Review Board would be looking for in an Entrance Corridor.
Ms. Monteith assumed that they were only talking about buildings when they are talking about architectural standards because sometimes it is broader in terms that a building could have a cloister figuration versus not having a cloister configuration. One would consider that to be part of the building so that part of what they might be looking to achieve is whether or not the building establishes the same principle of enclosure or the same benefits in the original plan. That can make a big difference.
Ms. Echols pointed out that the way they have been trying to deal with the elements of enclosure or less about the architectural features was to deal more with the heights, the proportions, the setbacks, the build to lines and what they think that the Commission would look for in the proportions, scale and massing and those kinds of things. That is what staff is suggesting that they would keep in. But, the little details would include such items as the façade treatment.
Mr. Edgerton said that it looks like they don’t have the staff to deal with this so they are not going to worry about it. Frankly, a lot of the projects at the varying level of detail that comes are often established not by a requirement, but by a desire of the applicant to sell a project as being something that has some aesthetic value. He was nervous if they are swayed by that and think it is a good project and then a subsequent owner of that property disagrees with that judgment, then they have a problem. He would like to avoid that problem, but did not know if the way to avoid it is to just pull that requirement out and just hope that it comes in nice.
Ms, Echols suggested that the Commission review the two columns on the screen regarding the Architectural Landscape standards that apply to the Neighborhood Model District, which will address the following: The form, massing and proportions of structures, which may be provided through illustrations.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the column on the left is what is in the ordinance now. The middle column is what is being proposed.
Ms. Monteith asked the reason why they were not retaining the landscape treatments.
Ms. Echols replied that the landscape treatments are where they would be asking for what is in addition to what is already required in the zoning ordinance. There has been some confusion over landscape treatments because people don’t know what it means. The applicant proposes their own landscape treatment. But, if it is less than what is in the zoning ordinance, staff would not be endorsing it. There has been a lot of confusion about what they are doing with the landscape treatments. They have some applicants that want to provide a greater amount of landscaping in their project and they want staff to know that is important. These are the standards that they can hold them to. Other applicants feel that what their ordinance requires is sufficient and unless there is some need for screening that they could not otherwise require. Staff might agree with them.
Ms. Monteith questioned the consistency if a portion of a development was developed and a portion was sold to another owner. She asked if there is a way to have consistency between what the first owner did and the second owner.
Ms. Echols replied that their expectation in terms of materials would be that there would be some covenants that would go along with the land that the original owner established regarding the kinds of materials and façade treatments. When they deal with the form, massing and proportions they would not be looking at the consistency of the architectural materials.
Ms. Porterfield pointed out that she was a little concerned about leaving out architectural styles. For example, the Rivanna Village is supposed to be a Williamsburg type of look, which it was approved at. It would seem that they would need to leave something in that indicates what each one would look like. She questioned whether staff or the ARB would help with this particular situation. It is important for everything built to be in that style. They are going to lose that totally with what staff is showing here.
Mr. Edgerton asked if a rezoning was in the Entrance Corridor and the ARB was being asked to review it to see if it was consistent what they are going to judge it against.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that it would be reviewed under their guidelines.
Mr. Edgerton asked if it would have nothing to do with what has been promised by the applicant.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the ARB’s review of the Entrance Corridor is based on the Entrance Corridor Guidelines, which is what they are allowed to do under the ordinance. The ARB can’t reach into other areas of review. If there were totally different architectural styles, materials, colors, roof forms and pitch that were part of the zoning action, they don’t actually have jurisdiction over those either being or not being in conformance with the zoning. They are evaluating the project based on the Entrance Corridor Guidelines.
Ms. Echols noted that the ARB would be able to look at the form, massing and proportions during the rezoning. The Design Planner would be looking at those for consistency with the Entrance Corridor Guidelines. They would get the framework established early on, but those details that are important to the ARB are what they would be setting the perimeters around.
Mr. Edgerton voiced concern over the hodge-podge effects that will come out of this because projects do get broken up into phases and pieces of projects get sold to other developers. As Ms. Porterfield points out without some kind of a theme for the entire project, which they hope would occur at the rezoning level, it could be a real problem down the road. Down the road money could be the reason for future developers to go to a less sympathetic style.
Ms. Echols asked if it would be sufficient for the applicant to say what kind of architecture that they are going to be providing and provide more of the details that are currently the ordinance, but provide for the recordation of covenants which would ensure that those things are taking place. Then it becomes solely a private matter of enforcement where the staff is not doing the enforcement of those details. But, the applicant is because he made a commitment that they were going to record these things.
Mr. Edgerton agreed that would work.
Mr. Loach asked to what degree does the community during the master planning process help make these architectural decisions. In the original Crozet Master Plan there were a number of suggestions, which were published by staff, about elements that they could incorporate in the Master Plan. If they were doing away with a lot of these do the communities have the ability to make some of these judgments during the master planning process. On the optional parking he had the same concerns as Mr. Edgerton. It goes back to the master planning where they identified in Crozet those centers. So they did have an idea of what they would be in size and scale. Even in downtown Crozet they established minimums for the parking. He felt that is important. He asked if this would lead in the master planning process, to a call on the community for a higher degree of specificity within the plan. That is one concern, which may be good or bad. He asked if the master planning process override this vested interest they have since the master plan is a Comprehensive Plan change.
Mr. Davis replied that it would not unless it was a comprehensive down zoning, which was difficult to achieve. It would be treated like any other rezoning. If someone has an existing zoning and it has vested rights to that zoning or to a plan that would supersede any subsequent action by the Board unless the developer chose to abandon the plan.
Mr. Loach asked if staff has identified how many exist in the growth area. He asked if this was a large problem they were going to be facing.
Ms. Echols replied that staff was still working on identifying how many are out there and will bring that number back to the Commission. With regards to the kinds of things that are in the Crozet Master Plan that relate to architectural what they had in there was building height and stories (how many stories are appropriate) and the kinds of setbacks that are appropriate. Those things are still in the Code of Development. Those are still requirements. If someone came in for a rezoning and wanted to use the Neighborhood Model District their Code of Development would be assessed against what the Master Plan says for the number of stories, for the walkability aspects and the setbacks. It would be similar to what was down in Downtown Crozet. It is very similar. There were no specific architectural regulations for Downtown Crozet, but they had requirements that related to the proportions to the façade breaks as to how many stories were allowed by use. Those requirements would remain.
Mr. Cilimberg said that if by chance there was a master plan done for a particular area that specified a certain architectural style that should be achieved for that master planned area that is an expectation that any rezoning would be evaluated against. The other thing to think about in terms of zoning that exists, whether it is planned development or any of the conventional districts, any zoning that is in place is by right and can be utilized by the owner contrary to what the master plan calls for unless the county takes an action to change the zoning. One place where they did that proactively was Crozet for the downtown area, to actually establish in zoning allowances that would permit them to develop differently than what their by-right zoning was at the time. That was considered an incentive in that case. But, without an action to actually change zoning anyone can develop according to the zoning that they have whether or not it is consistent with the master plan for that area.
Mr. Morris noted that the Commission had questions about the parking and the architectural standards.
Mr. Edgerton noted that on pages 8 and 9 it talked about the review of plans and subdivision. It refers back to the vesting and reviewing the applicable Code of Development in effect when the site plan or subdivision plan was under county review. He questioned if that was what they were trying to get away.
Mr. Davis noted that what this basically says is as compared to currently planned development the developer has the absolute option to choose whether or not he is going to use the rules that were in effect at the time it was approved or today’s rules. It is his choice. What this would say is unless the developer has vested rights there is not a choice. The developer would have to assert that he has vested rights. The way that the State Code deals with that is that the zoning administrator with the concurrence of the county attorney has to make a determination as to whether or not vested rights exist. That determination then would be binding unless it was appealed.
Mr. Cannon noted that there was a question of “diligence” in the applicant’s pursuit of his vested rights.
Mr. Davis said that determination of vested rights was going to be the totality of circumstance on a case by case basis.
Ms. Porterfield suggested that architectural style be left in and that the applicant is required to submit renderings.
Mr. Davis said that the challenge is if it is something essential to the approval and they leave it up to covenant, then there are always some provisions for covenants to be amended. Covenants have to be self enforced. The county does not have the legal authority to enforce covenants. That would be the challenge of trying to balance what is essential versus the details that really is not essential. Staff does not feel it should codify if it is not essential.
Ms. Echols noted that one of the challenges that they have in terms of the styles is that they don’t have anything to compare against. For example, Rivanna Village at Glenmore, there was a preference for a particular architectural style, but it was based on the aesthetic value of that particular community with the developer. The county does not have something to evaluate against. So when it comes to staff’s evaluation regarding architectural style there is not a lot they can say about them. It becomes something that the applicant thinks is important in this particular setting, and then it would be accepted by the Planning Commission, the Board and the County. Staff would not have something to evaluate against like the ARB has with the Entrance Corridor standards. Staff has a hard time getting an applicant to make a commitment to a rendering because they are setting up the zoning and have not designed the buildings yet to know what the buildings are going to look like. It has been a difficult to challenge to have an applicant to submit a drawing and say it is what the development will look like.
Ms. Porterfield suggested that staff ask the applicant to submit the style to be used on the development.
Mr. Edgerton suggested that if a Code of Development shows a style and includes a commitment to some sort of covenants, which may be adjusted as noted by Mr. Davis, but at least it would declare an intention. The only issue would be whether that could be legally transferrable to the next owner if the property were sold.
Mr. Davis said that the challenge would be in the covenant documents itself. Sometimes covenants require 100 percent of the property owner approval. If it is only one property owner, that would be easy to achieve.
Mr. Edgerton noted that if they are crafted the right way the applicant controls that as long as they need to in order to market the property.
The Planning Commission noted the following for further staff work:
1. The architectural standards and parking are the two areas of concern that need to be further addressed.
2. Staff should schedule a round table discussion with the development community to include Planning Commission participation.
The Planning Commission took a break at 7:09 p.m.
Go to next set of minutes
Return to exec summary