FARMINGTON -- The Farmington Planning Commission discussed design standards for multi-family housing in MF-1 and MF-2 residential zones during its Sept. 26 meeting at City Hall.
Presently the city has a moratorium on rezoning property to multi-family housing, according to city business manager Melissa McCarville.
The planning commission is proposing changes to city Ordinance 2014-10, Design Standards for Multi-Family Housing in MF-1 and MF-2 Zones, McCarville said.
A December deadline has been set by the Farmington City Council for the planning commission to have the updated standards in place before the city will once again begin to accepting requests to rezone property to multi-family, McCarville said.
The moratorium is set to expire in January.
The discussion was not listed on the agenda and was held after the normal business of the meeting was conducted.
The commission had only one item on its agenda, and it unanimously denied a request for a variance from Bart Bauer to hydroseed a retention pond, rather than install sod, for a residential development on state Highway 170 and Effie Way.
Planning commission Chairman Robert Mann said the commission should bring up Ordinance 2014-10 on MF design standards for discussion but would not vote on anything that evening.
The planning commission began going through the ordinance section by section at the suggestion of commissioner Bobby Wilson.
The provisions of the ordinance would apply to all MF developments that meet two thresholds: new construction requiring a building permit or additions or alterations to a building or site, excluding interior-only improvements, which total 50% or more of the gross square footage of the existing building(s) or site.
Section B deals with exemptions to the ordinance and says any multi-family development plans that are pending before the Farmington Planning Commission would have to follow any new provisions after the effective date of a new design standards ordinance. Multi-family development plans that have received final approval of the planning commission prior to the effective date of the new ordinance would follow the ordinance in effect at the time of the final approval.
Several commissioners said Section C needed to be reworded.
Section C states, "These Multi-Family Residential Design Standards shall be applied in the review process for large scale developments (LSD). The developer shall submit all required documents for the LSD process, including the application and checklist."
Commissioner Keith Macedo asked if he was reading Section C wrong because he believed there could be a multi-family development that is not a large scale development.
"I just think that should be part of the review process for multi-family," Macedo said. "All MF-1 and MF-2 zones are multi-family."
Commissioners agreed that any MF development should have to follow the design standards.
Commissioners had some discussions and debates on building design standards.
Commissioner Keith Macedo said he did not like the changes proposed for windows. Ball said to strike the section and keep it to existing standards.
Commissioners Judy Horne and Bobby Wilson recommended keeping the part that "windows should be recessed and include visually obvious sills. Spaces between windows should be formed by columns, mullions, or material found elsewhere on the facade."
Horne added that she believes it looks better when windows have sills, compared to the way ordinary multi-family housing is built. She also said when developers just throw windows up on the side of the house without recessing and sills, they look cheap.
The commission agreed to keep the portion relating to recessed windows and sills and strike the rest.
Subsection 3 concerning roof lines also drew intense discussions from Horne and the commissioners. Horne said she had several issues with this portion of it.
Horne said on the second line which reads "Pitched roof forms ... with overhanging eaves should be used with between five inches of vertical rise to 12 inches of horizontal run and 12 inches of horizontal run," ought to state "shall be" instead of "should be."
Horne also said she was in favor of not having rooflines that were 100 feet long without breaks in them saying that a 100-foot roof line is boring. Instead she favored changing it from 100 feet to 60 feet and made a motion to do so.
Ball said to either leave it alone or have a professional look at it. Horne noted that in the time it takes for a consultant to come out to address the issue, developers can come in and put up long roofs.
Wilson said the planning commission is rehashing everything they discussed the previous Monday night.
"We are going nowhere with this," Wilson said. "We're going word by word and dissecting it and that's fine if that's what everyone wants to do, but if we're going to keep changing everything I'm going to be real blunt. Stop wasting my time."
Mann said the planning commission would go over the last three subsections for Section B and then adjourn for the evening.
Section B, subsection 4, dealt with main entrances. Ball recommended consulting a professional for this section. Horne said the planning commission is trying to improve the city's design standards or guarantee that developers use good design standards.
Section B, subsection 5, regarding gutters and downspouts drew a comment from Horne who recommended water flow be directed away from the building. Bramall told her that it was a building code issue.
Subsection 6 states that fences are required between each multi-family unit in a development and between adjacent properties.
Horne commented that she thought the planning commission had already decided partitions were required between a porch on each multi-family unit in the development and between adjacent properties but also believed that was covered by the landscape ordinance, she said.
Ball said he would like to look at a consultant's take on the subsection about fences.