Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-12-18 Minutes�4 Gi 0 0 rd 0 C) 0 cu • 4J Irl ru >1 4-J -H t3) 4 H 41 at JiJ o ro a) ro rl U) 4-J 44 rd t M 4-1 N A 0 -r fd 4.1 -H ro ro � 4J tr.)) as 4-) -ri :3 U) �4 fn r o ri 0 W 4-1 W 4-1 41 0 0 9 (1) -H 0) 4-J u (s -H x ro F, 4J (1) rd 4) 0 4-4 s A 4 0 -li 0 ty) VO 4-) 0 0 r-I "H -rl r, as 4 H 0 ai bi P.4 11) �i P, roaa 4) b CJ 4J p 0 m 0 s4 D4 ra N 0 aJ a7 �4 bi (o P, MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY oowM/SS|0N BOZEMAN, MONTANA December 18 1991 The Commission of the City of Bozeman met in upona| session in the Commission Room, Municipal Building, December /x 1991, at 7:00 p.m. Present were Mayor Hawks Commissioner Frost, Commissioner Swanson, Commissioner Knapp, and City Manager Wysocki, City Attorney Luwo and Clerk of the Commission Sullivan. Commissioner Goohrung was absent. Signing f Notice ofSpecial Meeting The Mayor requested that each of the Commissioners sign the Notice of Special Com- mission Meeting. Each Commissioner signed the Notice in turn. Continued discussi listing Planning Director Andy Epp|e led the Commissioners through further discussion of the proposed zone code amendments received as a result of public input solicited during this initial 90-day review process, as follows. K S Revise HMU District language. Planning Director Epp|c noted that Section 18.40,020.A. has been revised to read »... not held in single ownership unless developed over time while held in multiple owner- ship." He then suggested there is no need to revise this section s[noc if a parcel is held in single o*nership, the planned unit development process is available for accomplishing a mixed use development on the parcel. The Planning Director noted that historic mixed use is a zoning district; and if that zoning district is established for property held in single ownership, there is a potential that it would be construed as spot zoning since single ownership is one of the tests for such determinations. Mr' Keith Swenson noted that the phrase "unless developed over time while held in multiple ownership" was not contained in the original draft of the ordinance; and he was concerned that the phrase was added because of one specific parcel. He suggested that, while it may not be appropriate to zone that parcel HMU there may be other parcels in single ownership where it would be appropriate. He then stated he feels the option should be made available; and each application should be considered on its own merits, rather than the option being eliminated. Mr. Swenson stated that the existing language removes flexibility from the zone 12-/8-91 Special - 2 - code document, which is contrary to its intent, He then encouraged the Commission to re- instate the language contained in the original document noting it was drawn from the Eugene, Oregon, zone ondo' Commissioner Knapp noted that this revision was the direct result of public testimo- ny received during the public hearing on the proposed zone code. Planning Director Epp|o no|tcra*wd his position that HMU zoning is not appropriate for a single-ownership parcel. Mayor Hawks stated that historic mixed use zoning deals with conflicting uses; and those can occur in single ownership as well as multiple ownership situations. He then asked if there are any legal ramifications in differentiating between single ownership and multiple ownership. Qty Attorney Luwe stated that to |oovo The language as it currently exists does remove the potential for litigation if a single ownership parcel were to be rezoned to *Mu. He further noted that with the planned unit development option available to single owners, this does not preclude development of that parcel with multiple uses. Further responding to Mayor Hawks, the City Attorney stated that to allow proper- ty in single ownership to be zoned HMU could result in an allegation of spot zoning; how- ev*r he noted there is a difference between an allegation of spot zoning and actual spot zoning. He stated that the current language eliminates the allegation of spot zoning rec- ognizing it might be possible to have such e rezoning survive the challenge of spot zon- ing, imple- ment an HMU zoning district along the Oo||ogotur park would encompass a larger area than just Mr. Hugh Roid's property. He stated that with a more comprehensive area which in- cludes residential properties as well as the old factory buildings, Martel Construction of- fices and the old mink farm it would be much more appropriate to utilize the HMU zoning designation. Mr. Swenson stated that has been the intent of the HMU zoning designation from the outset, noting it was meant to be applied to a logical area. He nuitnnutod his position, however, that this section should not be changed just because of one rezoning request that was determined inappropriate on its own merits. Commissioners Swanson, Knapp and Frost stated support for leaving the language in this section as it currently exists. Use of term "Non-period" rather than "Contemporary" in Neighborhood Con- servation District. Commissioner Knapp stated that "contemporary" means a very definite style to her/ and she does not feel that is the intent of this section of the code. 12-18-91 Special - 3 - Mr. Keith Swenson stated that he perceives "contemporary" to mean something that grows and changes, reflecting what is happening at that particular point in time. He sug- gested that' just because what has occurred in the past decade or two is referred 10 as "contemporary" at this time does not moan that it will be considered '/contemporary" in the next decade or t*n. He stated that he fro|o the term "non-period" is more restrictive. He then stated the intent of this section is to allow all typos of architecture in all periods of time to exist in the neighborhood conservation district, rather than freezing that area to reflect only one period of architectore. Commissioner Swanson suggested that the definition of "contemporary" he expanded to reflect Mr. 5wonsnn's comments if that is determined appropriate. Mayor Hawks suggested that the word "contextual" might more appropriately fit the intent of this section. He noted that it would allow contemporary design; however, it must also identify with the existing district. The Planning Director stated he does not feel using such a term would be appropri ate. He noted that it would require definition; and it could still create administrative problems. He then suggested that using a mixture of words, such as nnn-poriod contem- porary design, might be more appropriate. Mr. Keith Swenson stated support for the use of a mixture of words, suggesting it might more appropriately reflect the intent of the neighborhvod. The Planning Director suggested that the word "contemporary" be added back into Section 18'42.0*0.C.' pp that it |odudoo both "non-period" and "contemporary." He noted that this may more accurately reflect the fluid nature of development within the district; the Commission concurred. Including CUP's and New Developments along with PUD's etc. The Planning Director stated that under this proposed amendment, Section 18.43.080.F' would be revised to add conditional uses and new developments to the signagn standards portion of the entryway corridor overlay district regulations. He then indicated he has no problem with including this revision; the Commission concurred. Organization of Chapter 18.50. Planning Director Epp|* stated that Mr. Swenson and Mr. Craft have suggested that this section he reorganized because it is now encumbered with repetitive and sometimes conflicting requirements. He then stated that while he does not necessarily concur with that assessment, he would like an opportunity to explore specific examples. The Director suggested that in the meantime, the language be left as it is' noting that staff has already been directed to revise the first six or seven pages of the section as they pertain to auto- mobile service stations and conveniences uses. He suggested that any additional revisions which may seem appropriate as a result of staff rev/ow of this section would be in- 12-18-91 Special - 4 - duded in a comprehensive package. Mr. Keith Swenson stated that the ad hoc committee worked on this section exten- sively after the drafts from BRW Inc., the consulting Mrm, were received. He noted that even though they spent many hours on this section, inconsistencies still remain. He stated that a page-by-page review of the section could result in elimination of those incon- sistencies. He further noted that the manner in which it is currently organized is confus- ing and redundant. Responding to Mayor Hawks Mr. Swenson stated that he h:ds that eight to two pages of the existing text will need substantial revision as a result of his comment. The Planning Director stated that he will carefully review this section. He then noted that under the approach that 8R0/ took when compiling this document, an individual could go into this auction find the appropriate use, and so* at o glance what would be required' He then suggested there might he some merit in this "one stop shopping" ap- proach which he will consider when reviewing this section. Mr. Swenson suggested that many of these items could be covered under the miscellaneous portion of the use standards. Mayor Hawks stated that if that approach is determined appropriate, care must be taken to ensure that reference to that section is made in the section dealing with that spe- cific use' Planning Director Epp|e stated that this section of the coda is approximately 70 pages long, and is the essence of the document. He then stated his intent to review this section comprehensively, forwarding any changes he determines appropriate. Eliminate Street Vision Triangle requirements for driveways and alleys. The Planning Director reminded the Commission that they had added Section 18.60.080.D. to address the concerns which have been raised by the respondents. He noted that while subsections A. B. and C. address the vision triangles at various inter- section, subsection D. provides an exception to all of the above. Commissioner Frost stated that subsection D. does not apply to structures and fences which might be located in the sight triangle at on alley. He suggested that these requirements could be imposed on any new a||oyo that might be developed in the communi- ty; however, he feels they are unrealistic for existing alleys. Planning Director [pp|e reminded the Commission that this requirement was con- tained in the old zone code also. He noted in fact that the size of the vision triangle has been reduced considerably from the old standard, Commissioner Frost stated he feels that sight triangles need to be provided at driveways, since people tend to bock out into the street. He suggested that since people drive out of alleys into the street the sight triangle is not so critical. 12-18-91 Special - s - Respvndimg to Commissioner Swanson the Planning Director stated he does not feel additional information is needed from the City's engineering staff' He noted their position that street vision triangles are definitely needed. Commissioner Swanson noted that the code is designed to guide new development. He then indicated it is generally the clear intent that an individual will not be required to take down an existing structure because it does not comply with the code. He then sug- gested that such language be included in the code so that people are aware of that intent. Commissioner Knapp noted that when a majority of the alleys in the community were devm|u,od, they were used by horses and wagons, not fast vehicles. Mr. Keith Swenson reminded the Commission of the Randall Arendt lecture. He not- ed that Mr. Arendt showed pictures of narrow streets, pointing out that they are self- limiting. He stated that traffic tends to move slower on narrow streets and when vision is impaired. He noted that on wider streets with more visibility, traffic tends to move fast- er. He then suggested that if the alleys are more o9o^^ traffic will be encouraged to move faster. He further noted that more npom alleys would also change the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Swenson stated that many communities are now trying to rid themselves of the engineering life safety standards, recapturing w more reasonable and logical set of stan- dards that work. He then encouraged the Commission to eliminate this section, thus allow- ing for good design. Commissioner Frost reiterated his willingness to eliminate the sight triangle require- ments for alleys, and his unwillingness to eliminate that provision for driveways. City Manager Wysocki cautioned the Commission that they cannot ignore engineering standards. Responding to Commissioner Frost City Attorney Paul Lu=e stated that many of those intersections with encroachments into the sight triangle are presently nnn- conformin8. He then reiterated the point that this provision will assist in development along new alleys. Mayor Hawks noted the downtown core, where the encroachments into the sight tri- angles are significant. He than noted the importance of having this provision in the code; however, he suggested that the triangles could be reduced to a minimal size. Planning Director Epp|e stated that the sight triangles contained in the code are minimal in size now. He then suggested that it would be possible to eliminate alleys from this requirement, or to stipulate that the provision applies to new a||ayo only. Commissioner Swanson stated he is not interested in eliminating subsection C. not- ing that the safety of children must be carefully considered. Commissioner Frost stated support for leaving this provision in' suggesting that the 12-18-91 Special - 6 - sight triangle for alleys be as minimal as possible. Mayor Hawks stated the existing sight triangle requirements have substantially more impact on driveways than on alleys because driveways are so much narrower. Commissioner Knapp stated support for leaving this section as is. Responding to Commissioner Swanson, the Planning Director stated he will prepare a diagram which shows the size of the vision triangles under the new code as well as under the old code, Further responding to Commissioner Swanson, the Planning Director suggested that the sentence "However, this provision shall not be construed as requiring the removal of existing structures or appurtenances." could be added to recognize non-conforming en- croachments and minimize public concern. Mayor Hawks asked if this statement would be included under subsection D. Commissioner Swanson stated support for the proposed addition. Landscape irrigation standards. Planning Director Epple stated he is moving toward an approach that might address this comment along with several others. He noted that the landscape section of the code utilizes a point system for determining the amount of landscaping needed for a project. He then proposed that he xmrh in conjunction with Mr. Dick Pohl to develop point incentives ror landscaping which requires minimal water. He also noted that installation of an under- ground sprinkling system could also garner additional points. Responding to Commissioner Knapp, the Planning Director stated he envisions a landscape design which contains a certificate that it is a "low water landscape design," signed by the appropriate landscaping authority. Mayor Hawks noted that the street environment is not a natural environment; there- fore the typical watering requirements may not be applicable to specific situation. Commissioner Frost noted that native plants are often short-lived, being green in the spring and turning brown early in the summer. He suggested it may not be appropri- ate to allow such plants in highly visible areas. Planning Director Epple concurred, noting that there may be places on a site where it would be appropriate and attractive, The Commissioners concurred with the Planning Director's proposed revisions. Backing into public rights-of-way, Planning Director Epple stated that under the present code, backing into alleys is allowed from residential uses which include single-family through tri-plexes; however, for back- ing into alleys is prohibitod- Mayor Hawks questioned why it isn't reasonable to allow backing into alleys in all o-1e-ol Special - 7 - districts and for all uses, since there is o requirement that zs meet o f manouvwring room be provided, The Planning Director stated that to allow hacking into alleys in various areas in the community could create some definite problems. He then stated that Mr. Swenson and Mr. Craft pointed out the narking lot behind City Hall as an example to support their proposed revision; and staff does not feel the situation is a good one. Mayor Hawks stated that parking is critical in the downtown area, and particularly around City Hall. He stated that to require installation of a parking lot in which one can maneuver around to nose into the alley is impractical and a waste of valuable space in many instances. He then noted the importance of the oMlricnt use of space in city envi- rons, rather than wasting space to accommodate what is perceived as necessary for safety. Commissioner Swanson asked if there is a history of serious accidents in the commu- nity as a result of people backing into alleys, particularly around City Hall. The City Manager responded he is not aware of any accidents; however, he noted that the traffic usually moves through the alley rather slowly. He noted that when one backs out of a parking space, an additional amount of caution is required. He then stated that he has observed Commissioner Knapp backing into parking spaces recently, as her way of dealing with the concerns of backing out. Planning Director EppX* stated the n||*ys inherently have obstacles, such as power poles and dumpstors that can cause problems for those hacking out. Mayor Hawks stated that he feels that backing into alleys does slightly increase the risk; however, he feels it is a good use of space. The Planning Director stated that if the Commission wishes to open this section to all usas, it is imperative that the 20-foot depth for maneuvering be strictly maintained. City Manager Wysocki stated that he does not support encouraging the backing of vehicles into alleys. He noted that in the downtown area, a unique set of circumstances exist that may be best accommodated by allowing the backing into the alley; however, he feels that allowance should not be extended beyond the downtown area. Commissioner Swanson suggested that provision could be included in the zone cnde. The Planning Director suggested the best approach might be to except out the B-3 zoning district from this provision. Commissioners Frost Swanson and Knapp stated support for the Director's sug- gestion; Mayor Hawks maintained his position that backing into alleys should be allowed in all districts. Home occupations in accessory structures. The Planning Director stated that at the present time, home occupations are allowed in residences but not in detached accessory structures. He stated that under this 12-18-91 Special - V - prnvsion a home occupation is allowed in an attached garage; however, that same use is not allowed in a detached garage. Mayor Hawks stated that work done in a garage is don* there because that is the appropriate place. He then stated he does not feel there should be discrimination between attached and detached garages; rather, he feels that enforcement of the zone code should be utilized to address any problems that might arise. He noted that any uses which occur in o garage or other accessory structure should not interfere with the neighbors. Commissioner Swanson stated support for the Mayor's comments. Commissioner Frost noted that to not allow home occupations in detached garages essentially eliminates them in the older part of town, where detached garages are the norm. Commissioner Knapp expressed concern that noises from garages carry because they are not insulated, and the doors are often open. The Planning Director stated that on other provisions in Section 18.50.150 would be revised; therefore, he suggested adequate safeguards would be maintained to ensure that home occupations are appropriate. Commissioner Frost, Commissioner Swanson and Mayor Hawks stated support for the proposed revision; Commissioner Knapp registered her disagreement. Mayor Hawks asked about minimizing traffic into a neighborhood because of a home occupation. Mr. Keith Swenson stated that the provisions of the old zone rode regarding home occupations were extremely restrictive. He noted that houses often serve as mini- incubators for new businesses/ and he feels that is consistent with what Bozeman really is. He then stated that if a business becomes a nuisance to the aroa, the residents will com- plain. Commissioner Knapp stated that the situation must become extremely intolerable ho— fore a resident will xomy|ayo about a neighboring use. She stated she does not feel that should be necessary; and she feels there are not adequate safeguards to preclude that type of situation from arising. Residential PUo criteria. Planning Director Epp|e stated concurrence that the criteria for a residential planned unit development, as contained on Page 225 need to be revised. He stated that Mr. Swenson and Mr' Croft have suggested a 50 percent density bonus rather than the 30 percent currently contained in the c"de. He then stated he feels that staff has already received adequate instruction to proceed with this item. PUD approval process. The Planning Director stated that Mr' Swenson and Mr. Craft suggest that this 12-18-91 Iponi^| - S - s+ction or the code is difficult, and fundamentally unworkable. He then stated disagree- ment with that assessment, noting that it has been rewritten from what was included in the interim zoning ordinance and contains flexible and workable provisions. He noted that if one complies with the code provision, the process for obtaining approval of planned unit development project can be relatively quick and easy; however, as complexity is ^dded, the time lengthens and the ease diminishes. The Planning Director stated that during a recent staff work session he asked the new Planner, who just started working whether this section of the coda needed revision. He stated the new Planner responded that it was easy to road and fpxnw and the process seems wurkab|e. He then noted that staff has suggested some minor revisions to this sec- tion; however, he encouraged the Commission 10 retain the general structure of the sec- tion. He stated that to date no project has been subjected to the process as contained in the code. Commissioner Frost stated concurrence, noted he is satisfied with this section as it exists. Mr. Swenson stated that he has had questions from architects and the development community about this section of the code. He then noted that if a process does not work smoothly and coa||y, the development community shuns it. Mayor Hawks stated the planned unit development process is one which the City should encourage. He then suggested it would be in the City's best interests to subject o project to this process to determine its effectiveness. Jerry DiMarco comment Additional language to encourage PVD's to be within City, The Planning Director noted that in Section 18.54,020.K, it specifically stipulates than the planned unit development process is intended "To encourage development of va- cant properties within developed areas." He suggested that this statement addresses Mr. D|Marcu/s concerns, noting the language can he made stronger if the Commission so de- sires. Mayor Hawks asked if redevelopment should be included under this statement; the Planning Director responded in the affirmative. He suggested that re-use and infiU could be included in the language of this statement to reflect the intent that it pertain to prop- erties inside the city limits as well as in the jurisdictional area. Commissioner Frost Commissioner Swanson and Mayor Hawks concurred, Placing the word "mandatory" after criteria z., a.' and o, to strengthen language. City Manager Wysocki requested an opportunity for staff to review this proposed amendment more fully. 72-18-97 Special - lo - Cvmmiss/vnor Frost stated agreement with the concept. Deleting phasing opportunities in pUD/s. Planning Director epp|e suggested that phasing is an integral aspect of the planned unit development review process and should not be deleted. Commissioner Frost stated concurrence. Conserve water, drought tolerant species, de/ate irrigation requirements. The Planning Director noted this item was addressed in one of the above dis- cussions. Historic Mixed use requirements for phasing out non-conformities. The Planning Director noted this concept is at odds with the basis for the historic mixed use zoning district. 2d H ad|a t Reduce aocmoo standards. Planning Director Epp|o stated that he has referred this comment to Peccxa and As- sociates, for their review in conjunction with development of the transportation plan up- uatc. He noted that he has requested input from Pecc|u and Associates, and will forward that information wpvo r*c*ipt. Garbage enclosures. The Planning Director stated that he is pursuing no changes to this section at this time. Bike racks. Landscaping. Planning Director Epp|e suggested that the Commission reconsider the requirement that bike racks be installed for developments subject to minor or major site plan review, as contained in Section 18,50,035.R. He stated that while this appears to be on excellent idea on the surface, it becomes readily apparent that there are some typos of uses for which this requirement seems inappropriate. Commissioner Swanson stated support for changing the "shall" to "may" in this pro- vision. He also suggested that similar language be included under Section 18.50,033.0. pertaining to bike lanes. Mayor Hawks and Commissioner Frost also stated support for the proposed re- visions. Sign Code. The Planning Director stated that this item will be revisited after the design objec- tive plans have been completed. Jack Dradb comments 2. Positive statement to credit previous installations of landscaping. 12-18-91 Special - ll - The Planning Director ao,tod that at the present time the language in the code is not as positively stated as it probably should be. He then stated support for the idea of revising the language to a positive setting, nvog Alexander comments Auto service stations through tennis clubs. dis- cussions. City Ma nager Wysocki comments z. Off-premise signs and the Federal Highway Beautification Act. Planning Director Epple stated that by law, the City is mandated to aUm° the bill- boards to remain along the state and federal highways. He noted that Myhre Signs has stated on interest in upgrading its siQn,, replacing those structures that are in major disrepair. He then suggested it may be possible to negotiate with Myhre Signs to have them remove the billboard signs in the downtown area, relocating them to the interstate. C ity-County 4. and 7. Definition of "alteration" and expansion of allowable "weekend-type" The Planning Director stated that he has discussed these issues with the Design Review Board; and the members generally support his nropoua|. He noted the intent is to restructure the concept and definition of "alteration", adding a definition of "alterations, minor," which would than be eligible for the streamlined process. 8. Deviation requests. The Planning Director suggested that Section 18.42.080 should contain the specific requirement that any requested deviations must be forwarded in writing, with clocumenta- tion on how those deviations will contribute to the goals of the neighborhood conservation Mr. Swenson asked if the DRB would be able to forward a recommendation for a de- viation if the applicant has not made such a request. He stated that if that is the practi- cal effect of this proposed amendment, he feels it is a very negative type of change. The Planning Director stated that this revision would be applicable to site plan projects only. Responding to Commissioner Swanson, the Planning Director stated that this proposed revision is already a requirement in the entryway corridor overlay district. He then stated that to allow a deviation recommended by the DRB to enter the process after the initial review and staff report have been completed leads to confusion during the entire process. Mayor Hawks stated he feels some mechanism should be available for adding a de- 12_18-91 S»,r|a( - }2 - vlation to the process that has been overlooked during the initial review rather than requiring the applicant 10 go bock to the first step. Mr. Keith Swenson stated that during its review of the Ready Lube application, the Design Review Board recommended deviations based no practicality; however, staff in- formed the Commission that they could not consider those deviations because they were not requested by the applicant during his initial filing. He then asked if the Commission wishes to receive this typo of information or whether the DRB should refrain from such recommendations. ' Commissioner Swanson stated that it is very confusing to the applicant to have the DRS recommend u deviation that cannot be considered by the Commission because it is not applicant-originated. He then noted that the applicants are generally not aware of all of the zone code regulations because it is a new document with many new processes and con- cepts. Planning Director 2pp|r stated it is important to incorporate all of the issues and items to be addressed early in the process. He then stated that deviations work very well in the neighborhood conservation district; however, he expressed concern about deviations in the entryway corridor overlay district because it seems that people generally want to just meet the code requirements while seeking the authorization to install something that does not comply. Mayor Hawks stated that he had a lengthy conversation with Mr. Mark Hinshaw consultant preparing the design objective plans, about the concept of deviations in the entryway corridor overlay district. He noted the difficulty will arise in attempting to maintain the standards of the code over a long period of time, ensuring that deviations are approved only for elevated landscaping plans. Mr. Keith Swenson stated he feels it is important to provide flexibility. He cited the Wild West T-Shirt site on North Rouse Avenue, which was subjected to a recent re- view. He noted that under the ovdr requirements, a certain number of trees must be planted in the public right-of-way. He noted that in this instance, compliance with that provision would have required removing several mature trees which are located on private property close to the public right-of-way, thus meeting the intent of that code require- ment. Mr. Swenson then stated that the issue of superior design is in the eye of the beholder. /,. Parking requirements in core area. Planning Director spp/n stated an interest in pursuing this item possibly reducing the number of parking spaces required for a use located in the core downtown business district. The Commission concurred, 12-18-91 Special -l3- 78. Parking requirements for small apartments. The Planning Director stated that at the present time, there are no specific parking requirements for efficiency apartments; therefore, the one-bedroom apartment parking re- quirements of 2.2 spaces per unit are utilized. He suggested that a separate category should be added for eM[/doony apartments containing not more than 600 square feet, pos- sibly with a requirement for l's parking spaces. per unit. The Planning Director indicated that the staff will pursue this item; the Commission 19. Parking requirements for Bed and Breakfast. The Planning Director stated he will pursue this item, including the possibility of one parking space per b*droom, since that seems e logical requirement. 27. Revocation of C0ps. Planning Director Epple stated an interest in pursuing the old code language for this item. 29' PUD design criteria. The Planning Director stated this item was addressed in above discussions, 5, and 9. 2l', 32. Pertaining to QRB/DRC roles and responsibilities. re- visions. Additional staff comments Planning Director Epple forwarded some additional questions and issues which he feels should be pursued, mainly as a result of the new City Attorney reviewing the docu- Classification of Use section. This section contains a number of ambiguities, which could probably be addressed through minor wording changes. Man Appeals Procedure. This procedure is somewhat different from the procedure for normal public hear- ings. This public hearing process could possibly be clarified with some slight wording Applicability section (new). The Planning Director then stated that he has received a request from Commissioner Frost that language be added somewhere in the code which indicates that "The City shall, to the greatest extent possible, comply with all of the standards and requirements con- tained herein. " Administration section. The Planning Director suggested that a sentence be added which indicates that 12-18-91 Special -l4- "The developer cannot do anything to other than minor site preparation, and that includes excavating for foundations, uuu| final site plan approval." He stated that the currant code provisions create a conflict because the language cited is the process allowed under the Uniform Building Code; however, the City's zone code presently conflicts. R-S zoning requirements. The Planning Director stated there appears to be o conflict between the master plan provisions for rural residential nodes, which provide for Willing of those nnd*, and the zone code provisions, which include an emphasis on clustering and planned unit develop- ments. He then suggested that a more traditional pattern of development is generally an- ticipated in those areas. Signs in the interstate corridor. The Planning Director stated /hat as the result of e question from Mr. Gene Conk regarding signoga for the new motel being constructed on his property near the inter- section of North 7th Avenue and 1-90, he feels this section may need reconsideration. He noted that the current regulations require that there be at least 35 feet between the ground and the base of the sign. Planning Director Epp!e stated that low signage was proposed, to ensure that the signs do not obstruct the vicwshud. He noted that near the interstate where signs are intended to attract high-speed traffic larger taller signs were proposmd. He stated that this difference in sign height avoids the potential of visual clutter all across the sky|ine- PUD section. The Planning Director stated that on Page 199, there is a provision that between approval of the preliminary plan and approval of the final plan, on applicant may seek to increase the number of residential dwellings by up to two percent; or an applicant may ooeh e decrease in open space of up to five percent. The Director stated that he feels the allowable decrease in open space should be reduced to two percent, providing consistency in this section and o more realistic and acceptable decrease in open space. PVD submittal requirements. The Planning Director stated that there is o conflict between sections of the code regarding the distances that people must be personally notified. He stated that in one section, on Page 197 it requires that the names and addresses of owners of record of properties within mu foot be submitted, and on Page zuo it requires that names and ad- dresses be provided for properties within 400 feet. He then suggested that it may be ap- propriate to revise these requirements so that if a proposed use is normally allowed within the underlying zoning district, the mailing will be to those within 200 feet; and if the pnvpnp,d use is not normally allowed within the underlying zoning district, the mailing will be to those within ,no feet or the subject site. 12-18-91 Special - 15 - Site plan review process. The Planning Director stated that at the present timm, a reproducible copy of the site plan is required, so the staff can run additional copies on the blue print machine. He then suggested that a reproducible copy of the site plan should also be required after the pUD has been finalized, so that staff can ensure that they are working from the appropri- ate plan. Mr. Keith Swenson stated that under the variance section, there is language which allows mailing of notices to property owners in a larger area if domnod appropriate by the Planning Director. He suggested that similar language in this section could continue con- sistency in processes and language throughout the code. Sign code. The Director stated that under the old code, there was a provision for multi-tenant commercial buildings that has been eliminated in this new code. He then suggested that a new table be added which reflects the maximum overall site development allowed and limits how much signage will be allowed for each of the individual tenants. Table 18,65-050,B, The Planning Director suggested that footnote e. be revised to stipulate that these landscaping requirements pertain to freestanding signs only, not to wall-mounted signs. He noted this will more accurately reflect the intent of this section of the code. Real estate signs. The Planning Director noted that real estate signs containing not more than six square feet and not more than six feet in height are exempt from mQo[atkm under the cod*. He suggested that for properties containing more than one acre, real estate signs containing up to 32 square font ohpw|d be allowed, possibly with some setback requirements attached. Amortization schedule. Planning Director Epple stated that the sections of the code contained on Page 274 require that those individuals with non-conforming signs be required to obtain permits to retain those signs. He stated that the Zone Code Enforcement Officer is becoming con- cerned with the level of work attached to the administrative process involved. He further noted that it is possible that some of those signs may remain standing for only six months or a year after a permit is issued. The Planning Director stated that, in light of these administrative issues, he would suggest these sections be replaced with more traditional non-conforming provisions which stipulate that "Signs which are legally existing upon the effective date of this ordinance yho|| be allowed to remain in accordance with the amortization schedule." He further suggested another statement that "Non-conforming signs or any other kind which did not 72-18-91 Special - 16 - legally exist at the time of this ordinance must be brought into immediate compliance." respon- sible for submitting the necessary information about existing sigoagn to the City, rather than the City being responsible for gathering the information and notifying business own- Commissioner Swanson support for this proposal, noting the Commission should take the advice of those within the City structure who are closest to the process. Each of the Commissioners concurred. Sandwich board sign,. The Planning Director stated that sandwich board signs are currently a|hn*rd in the public rights-of-way, through a revocable permit issued by the City Manager. He then noted that this item was addressed in the interim code, but was not forwarded to the final code. He suggested that this provision be reinstated into the code. Adjournment - 9:57 p.m. There being no further business to come before the Commission at this time, Mayor Hawks adjourned this special meeting of the City Commission. 12-18-91 Special