Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-30-01 CDC MinutesDublin City Council Community Development Committee ZONING CODE REVIEW Monday, Apri130, 2001, 7:00 p.m. Council Planning Roam Attending: John Reiner, Chau- Robert Adamek Greg Peterson Cathy Boring Brad Johnson, consultant, Ratio Architects Allen Weinstein, attorney, Consultant to Ratio Architects Jennifer Readler, Assistant Law Du•ector Barbara Clarke, Director of Planning Robert Price, Chief Building official Dave Marshall Paul Hammersmith Libby Farley Flora Rodgers Mr. Reiner called the Community Development Committee meeting to order at 7:05. He asked Ms. Clarke to review the progress to date. Ms. Clarke stated that one month ago the Community Development Committee met and established a rigorous schedule for review ofthe Zoning Code draft document, which has been generated by Ratio Architects and critiqued by staff. Staff believes the document is now in a good working format. Since the original meeting, an engineering consultant has joined the review team, Mr. Clyde Seidel. Tonight's meeting will provide a general overview of the document; subsequent meetings will focus on a particular section, with the entire document to have complete review by June 4, 2001. Ms. Clarke stated that in the document being reviewed tonight, that the italicized items are the ones which staff believes need more discussion and those items are italicized in this draft. Those items brought to staff's attention in tonight's overview will be revised, and the changes distributed to the review team for the next meeting in order to consistently provide the review team with an updated version to facilitate the review process. The only time that will be impossible is with the May 11 and 12th, back-to-back sessions. Staff's goal is to have all document revisions completed in June. The document will then be put in ordinance form, reviewed by Planning Commission to recommend to Council for a public hearing and adoption. Mr. Johnson noted that some of the sections, such as the sign section, have evolved in a manner to make them more legally defensible. He asked the team the following questions: + Hierarchy ofthe document. Does it meet the Committee's expectations, as far as material and ability to navigate? Committee consensus was that it met expectations. The Districts -Articles 3 and 4, residential districts as well as commercial and institutional. He inquired the Committee's opinion as to where districts should be added, deleted or modified. He stated that the document hinges upon the districts which are set up. Currently, there are four residential districts: single-family, historical, multi-family, and mobile home park. It has been suggested that an agricultural district be added to this series. The commercial districts include: two parks and recreation districts -- neighborhood parks and community parks; institutional and Zoning Code Review Team Apri130, 2001 Page 2 office combined; historic business district; general commercial district; office commercial; and limited industrial. He noted that staff and the consultants are still considering if there is a need for a second general commercial district. He inquired if the Committee believes that the City's needs «~ould be adequately met with the districts as provided in this document. Mr. Reiner inquired about the language describing multi-family as low density residential. It might invite unnecessary debate. Mr. Johnson agreed to abbreviate the district to multi-family. Mr. Reiner inquired if the reason the City still has a medium to high density residential is an attempt to overlay the current situation. Until 1988, there was not much of that type of density. He stated that Council wants to invite creative development, rather than absorbing streets and subdivisions. He inquired if Mr. Johnson considered these residential districts would meet that need. Mr. Johnson stated he believed they would. He added that the SF3 and SF4 were intended to provide districts for existing conditions, rather than new development. SF3 can be used for new, but SF4 is intended only for existing uses. Mr. Adamek inquired what the reasoning was for considering an agriculture district and a second general commercial district. Ms. Clarke explained that sometimes a property that is annexed is still farmed. According to public surveys, citizens prefer the rural character, and criticism is often results when the annexed land is developed quickly. When farmland is annexed to Dublin and there is not an appropriate zone in which to place it, the land is made non-conforming. However, it then becomes difficult for the landowner of recently annexed property to make any changes to their site. Sometimes communities use holding zones in which to put newly annexed property, or they simply are assigned the district closest to what they already have. She stated that this results in the City's adoption of someone else's mistakes or problems. Another option is to mimic the uses set out in the Community Plan. In some cases, that would mean conferring commercial zoning without the necessary development exactions that would normally be required. It establishes a density without parkland set aside - - things that typically are set forth as part of the overall development of the plan. If not an agricultural district, then some time of zoning is required to meet this need. Mr. Reiner pointed out that there is a limit of 750 feet for storage barns and garages. Owners of large lots, 2 - 6 acres, will object to those restrictions. How would that be addressed? Ms. Clarke stated that those issues would be handled by the B.Z.A. Those types of structures do create controversy within a neighborhood. She added that in a variance situation, it is easier to control what is permitted. Mr. Reiner inquired if the current version blocked the courtyard style of housing project. Zoning Code Review Team Apri130, 2001 Page 3 Mr. Johnson responded that as long as the structure is within the building envelope, they can do whatever they wish with the property. Mr. Weinstein stated that with the 37,000-sq. ft minimum lot area, there is 7500 square feet with in which to work. Mr. Johnson referred to Mr. Refiner's question about the second general commercial district. He stated that the "big and ugly" are grouped along with the smaller plans. However, this document does have a provision that if the building is over a certain size, it would have to go through a different design review. It would have to satisfy the big box retail criteria. Ms. Clarke stated that staff's view has changed with the recent issues with Mary Kelley's. originally, staff believed that certain types of retail could exist alongside residential in the residential setting; however, the residents have had many difficulties with this development. This i~ in spite ofthe fact that it is awell-designed center, has a good developer behind it, and has no economic problems. Many times there is not the advantage of a good design, good developer, and good economic footing, which would make those situations worse. When Planning staff tried to define the district, they eliminated as many uses as possible, ending up with the commercial center. Cif course, one of the intents in re-writing the code was to incorporate some of these types of retail into more convenient places so residents wouldn't have to drive someplace different for every need. That intent has not been adequately addressed. Mr. Weinstein noted that this type of retail was not included in this document; that is the opportunity to create a traditional form of commercial and residential mixed development, which would feature first-floor retail with residential above. Suburbs which are closer in to a City use this type of zoning, because there is a market for it with young folks who want to live in a more interesting retail/urban oriented environment. Some "empty nesters" also look for this and people who want the flexibility of retail with second-story offices. Would Dublin want this? Mr. Reiner stated that Dublin would welcome a new urbanism type of development if there were a developer who designed the project in totality. Dublin is hesitant due to a couple of situations in the past, where the vision sold to the City did not match the high-density product which emerged. Mr. Weinstein asked if this would find favor if a developer came in with an impressive planned development, rather than the Code allowing for development on a smaller scale. Mrs. Boring stated that she is skeptical that a new urbanism center would be accepted. Mr. Adamek stated that he likes the concept of small-scale retail close to the neighborhoods. If this should come forward with the southwest golf course development, could it be handled under the current C-1 zoning? Mr. Johnson responded that it could not. This is not designed to be inclose proximity to neighborhoods. However, a neighborhood commercial district could be created which would allow Zoning Code Review Team Apri130, 2001 Page 4 upper story residential and lower story commercial along with severe restriction of the types of uses and the size ofthose uses. Mr. Adamek inquired if it could be brought in as a planned district. Mr. Johnson responded that the way the Code is currently written, it could only be done for unique situations; such as, the topography is not conducive, special accommodations are needed, or it is a very creative idea. Any typical uses would be turned down. Mr. Adamek inquired if that meant it would be difficult to fit this in near the golf course development. Mr. Johnson stated it would. Mr. Reiner stated that this, however, is what is wanted, excluding bars. Mr. Johnson stated that bars could be restricted. Mrs. Boring stated that if this is what is desired, why didn't the retail center in Muirfield succeed? Ms. Clarke stated that the numbers weren't there when the center went in. They tried to persuade the developer not to build it because the traffic was not there yet. Now that Tartan has been built, and thousands of cars are passing daily, the site is maturing. However, those retailers have left the site. Mr. Adamek suggested that they pursue the addition of an agriculture district to handle the holding zone and look at adding a neighborhood commercial. It would be small scale commercial, which would be very restricted in how it blends into the residential aspect. From the Shoppes at Athenry case, staff now has a thick file of items to consider in making this type of retail more neighborhood friendly. Mr. Reiner stated that those issues would be related to odor, sound, and landscape. It presents fewer problems when it is developed ahead of the subdivision; if it is built afterwards, there are more problems. Mr. Boring stated that it is primarily an issue of distance from the nearest neighbor. Mr. Sprague agreed that distance from the nearest neighbor is the key issue. His home is located across the street from the Shoppes at Athenry, and they enjoy the proximity of the UDF. For those neighbors who are closer to Mary Kelley's, it is a problem. The concept is great, the mix is good; maybe it was an execution problem. Ms. Clarke inquired about the intent for residential districts regarding churches and schools. The hours and parking can make the relationship between residences and churches and/or schools Zoning Code Review Team Apri130, 2001 Page 5 imperfect. Should they be included by right in all residential areas, or are different standards desirable? Mr. Reiner inquired why schools are located along major thoroughfares. This slows down the traffic during peak hours. Do school boards choose the site? Should there be zoning to keep them out of those busy areas? Could all these issues be resolved by correct platting or restructured platting? Mr. Weinstein responded that schools prefer to be on major thoroughfares to facilitate the busing of students. Mr. Johnson noted that a trigger that could be used regarding this issue is impervious surface or lot coverage. If no more than 20 percent of the lot is covered, whether it is one, five or 50 acres, there will be sufficient greenspace. He added that details and thresholds on the individual articles of the Zoning Code will be worked out in a later session. He stated that Ms. Clarke had inquired where the City's research and development facilities would fit in the districts proposed. He stated that they do not fit well anywhere. However, they could be included in Limited Industrial, or Office/Commercial Uses could be expanded to accommodate them. Mr. Adamek stated that he would prefer to place them in the latter. The Commercial would be more restrictive than Light Industrial. Ms. Clarke stated they could be placed in a higher density office district or a separate district could be created. Mr. Johnson stated that he would not encourage a separate district for four or five instances. Over time, the research and development facilities could transition from 70 percent research to 70 percent office; the office district gives the companies more flexibility. Mrs. Boring stated that she is satisfied with leaving them in an office/commercial district. Mr. Johnson stated that he would like to start with the beginning of the document and have the review team point out the items they have red or yellow flagged in their preliminary rej~iew. Article 1 -Basic Provisions Mrs. Boring inquired if page 1.3 is where the WOW elements would be incorporated. Ms. Clarke responded that staff referred to the Community Plan, looked at the uses tested in the computer modeling, using those densities, ratios, land uses to create the districts and the zoning code. This document says a lot about the community plan, and zoning codes usually do not. WOW was an idea which originated with the Community Plan. This section includes WOW elements, but it includes other ideas, too, such as the expansion of the corridor development district to include all Zoning Code Review Team Apri130, 2001 Page 6 the important thoroughfares, or the desire to aesthetically change the appearance of some development. Mrs. Boring inquired if the Road to Wow is adopted, will those standards be incorporated in the Code. Ms. Clarke said that they would. Article 2 - Zoning Districts Mr. Johnson stated that this article provides a general establishment of the standard districts including a brief description and a description of how to interpret the three columns used in the next article. These will be discussed in greater detail at another meeting. Mrs. Boring inquired if there was a reason that single family detached was used in all residential categories except SF1. Mr. Johnson stated that was an oversight; it will be included. Mr. Seidel stated that in SF4, it would be good to re-emphasize that this is for existing development. Mr. Reiner noted that this is where the language, "low density multi-family" would also be converted to "multi-family." IVIr. Johnson agreed. Article 3 -Residential Zoning Districts Mr. Adamek noted that in SF2, base density against the maximum density, it states "not applicable" - why is that? Ms. Clarke stated that a couple of neighborhoods are zoned R2, 20,000 sq. ft. lots -Kerry Glen and a couple in the southwest area. There is a class for 30,000 sq. ft. and a class for 10,000 sq. feet. It ~~vas a last minute decision to create an R2 zoning to allow consistent zoning for a couple of those neighborhoods to go forward. Mr. Adamek asked whether a base density could be formulated for that, as has been done for SF1 and SF3. The idea is to provide a "cookie cutter" format for the developer. If he wants an SF2, he should have the same basis to work from as is provided with the other two. Ms. Clarke stated that staff would look at that. Mr. Reiner inquired about SF1. He noted that there are many lots along the river that are bigger than this. Is this really the largest category the City wants to have, or would it be wise to want to go one up? The 8-ft. setbacks and side yards are standard subdivision setbacks and do not occur on Zoning Code Review Team Apri130, 2001 Page 7 three or five-acre lots. The idea is to discourage subdivision and preserve the homes on large parcels to retain the rural character. Ms. Clarke stated that much of the community is zoned R-1, which requires a minimum lot of 40,000 sq. ft., a minimum sideyard of 8 feet, combined sideyards of 20 feet. Many people exceed that, but not everyone. The direction for this document was that the desire was to create no non- conformity. If this number is increased, there will be some homes on orchard Lane or Riverside Drive that may no longer comply with the sideyard standard. This standard was used so as to accommodate everyone. Mr. Reiner asked if this could be resolved with a larger single family category that would fit much of this housing. Mr. Johnson asked how many developable sites are left that are 3 to 5-acre lots, where there could be concern that someone could build 8 feet from the property line. Ms. Clarke stated that there are hundreds of existing homes and a potential for at least one hundred more. The wider the requirements, the fewer lot splits are likely to occur. Mr. Adamek inquired if the sideyards were made 30 feet, what would be the downside ofhaving some existing structures that are nonconforming? Mr. Weinstein responded that a problem occurs if the structure is destroyed. Traditionally, nonconforming uses cannot be reconstructed without curing the nonconformity. One possibility is to have bigger lots and have a variation on the nonconforming structure standards that applies uniquely to this district. Discussion continued regarding nonconforming structures. Mr. Johnson summarized that the concern is that the 1.2 - 1.3 acre lots could have the smaller homes replaced with larger mansions, which would be imposing upon the neighbors, or that the larger 3+ acre lots could be subdivided. He stated the larger setbacks may not be that much of a problem. The smaller home which is destroyed can be replaced, not on that foundation, but by constructing a new foundation further back on the lot. The larger lots may not be in great danger of being subdivided since much of those lots are flood plains; the others could be restricted by larger lot sizes or frontages. Mrs. Boring inquired if she had a 40,000-sq. ft. lot, could she declare her property SF2. Mrs. Clarke stated that anything zoned R1 now would be SF1. Becoming anything else would require a rezoning approval by City Council. Mr. Adamek stated that all properties would go into the category closest to what they currently are. If they want something different, they will have to request a rezoning. Zoning Code Review Team Apri130, 2001 Page 8 Mr. Reiner stated that 20 years from now, the desire to subdivide would increase, so Council should address that eventuality now. There is a need to keep the density low on S.R. 745, if it is to remain a two-lane road. If the larger properties along that road start subdividing, traffic will be significantly increased. How can that be prevented? Mr. Adarnek referred to the earlier discussion on scenic setbacks on scenic roads. Some residents were concerned that becoming nonconforming would make them ineligible for home equity loans. Ms. Readier stated that was in the context of 200-ft. setbacks. The legal opinion was that 200-ft. setbacks for those lots could be found to be a taking. Mr. Sprague inquired if the City rezones land, could the insurance on that nonconforming structure be increased, since, to rebuild, the footprint would have to be moved. Also, if that property were in contract for sale, would the potential buyer be notified of its nonconforming use? Mr. Weinstein stated that there is a disclosure statute, but he will have to look to see if non- conforming status could be included. The argument against disclosure is that it is something that anybody could discover. Mr. Reiner requested that verbiage be added to permit a homeowner to rebuild a conforming structure, if destroyed. Ms. Clarke stated that staff could do a survey of the existing lots to see what types of problems could be created with a requirement for wider sideyards. She inquired what figure is suggested. Mr. Johnson responded that they are looking at a minimum of 30,000 sq. ft. lots. Calculations could be made to determine what a footprint would be with different setbacks. Ms. Clarke said that, currently, the requirement is 150 feet of front lot width; 25-ft. side yards would permit a 100-ft. house. Discussion continued regarding setbacks. Mr. Johnson stated that details ~~~ould be covered later. Mr. Kindra inquired about page 3-13, sidewalks and tree lines are not identified. The sidewalks from the multifamily unit to the tree line look like driveways. The intention is not to create service roads, so it would be helpful to clarify this. Mr. Kindra stated that it should be clarified that there should be no less than 25-ft. setbacks in the multifamily. Article 4 -Commercial/Institutional Zoning Code Review Team Apri130, 2001 Page 9 Mr. Seidel stated that clarification should be made regarding shared drives, including the encroachment ofthe driveways into the sideyard setback. Mr. Adamek referred to C1, page 4-11, General Commercial District. Is the current code 30 feet for maximum structure height or higher? Ms. Clarke stated that there is one reference in the code to 35 feet in a residential district. Structures higher than that have to go to the Planning Commission after recommendation by the Fire Chief. The only ones that have been heard by the Commission were St. Brigid's and St. John's. In the commercial district, there really isn't a maximum height restriction. Mr. Johnson stated that they would check to see if the maximum height is too low. Ms. Newcomb stated staffdiscussed setting a maximum height when they addressed lot coverage, and Council rejected setting a maximum height. Mr. Johnson clarified that C1 is the retail commercial development. Development, such as Lowe's, would be more than 30 feet. 11~Ir. Reiner asked that they look at the setbacks for C?ffice/Commercial and Limited Industrial districts. Article 5 - werlay Districts Mr. Sprague referred to 5-2, District Intent #5. The property owners in the historic district and A.R.B. are sensitive about demolition of any structures in that district. However, there is also the view that if a structure is not sound, has no historic value, and there is good reason to demolish the structure, then demolish it. So, is intent #5 too restrictive? Some ofthe structures in that district are no longer sound. How far should the bias go in this document? Mr. Johnson stated that intent is a goal statement and not enforcement. In reference to historic preservation, language could be added regarding preservation of buildings that may not be historically significant, but they contribute to the essence of the district. Ms. Clarke urged caution. Similar provision was suggested in the Community Plan regarding areas for "potential" parking. This drew a rousing response, and all identification of such potential properties was removed from the plan. Mr. Adamek stated that the intent is to work in that district and create a better looking environment, however, the statement is made here that no changes can be made even in the landscaping without A.R.B. approval. That is too limiting. Ms. Newcomb stated that the current code states that landscape changes on commercial properties must be approved by A.R.B.; that requirement is not made for residential properties. The proposed Code change does apply that restriction to all properties. Zoning Code Review Team Apri130, 2001 Page 10 Ms. Clarke states that A.R.B. is concerned with how air conditioners, etc. are screened. Mr. Johnson stated that the landscaping provision could be limited to screening issues on commercial properties. Ms. Newcomb noted that under page 5.5, Demolition Provisions, it states that demolition should not be permitted unless at least one of the three conditions listed is met. She stated that the intention was to require two of the three to be met. Mr. Johnson stated that the number would be corrected. Mr. Sprague referred to 5-4 H, Satellite Dishes. He asked that this be addressed consistently. He asked if a dish was defined; it once was 36 inches in diameter. Ms. Readler stated that there is a subgroup of the Law Department specializing in Telecommunications Issues, which was reviewing this section for the City. She inquired if they provided their opinion to staff. Ms. Clarke stated that they received a brief statement, which was referred to the consultants. Mrs. Boring inquired why satellite dishes could be restricted in this district, but not in others. Ms. Readler stated that it was due to the historical significance of that district. Mr. Sprague noted that in this document, the definition of the dish has been expanded. That use will likely increase in the other issues. Mr. Reiner noted that on page 5-7, Development Overlay District, Avery-Muirfield was not listed in the major thoroughfares. Also, he suggested that the setbacks be scaled to the roads in regard to their size and purpose. For instance, S.R. 161 and I-270 should have much larger setbacks. Ms. Clarke inquired if setbacks should also be rated according to parking. Mr. Reiner stated that would depend on how the landscaping is handled. He also referred to page 5- 9, Development Requirements, F and H, regarding maintenance of the right-of--ways, which will be important to address. Article 6 - Zoning; Man No comments. Article 7 -Planned Development Districts Ms. Clarke inquired if one Planned Development District district is enough. There are currently several with different rules. In PUD, the Planning Commission has broad discretion; in a PCD, they Zoning Code Review Team Apri130, 2001 Page 11 have none. These are the zones that have been used the most often over the past 20 years. In the attempt to simplify, has this been limited too severely. Mr. Johnson stated that these districts were used because the standard districts weren't meeting expectations. Now that the regulations for those districts are in place, it is a simple process. Not only have all the planned districts been combined in one, but also those planned development districts will be restricted to unique and creative designs, unusual physical conditions, or for mixed use. Standard district regulations should be applied to all other development. Mr. Seidel noted that the minimum lot size of two acres should discourage use of this district. Mr. Johnson stated that it should be clarified that to qualify for platting, there should be assembled a minimum of two acres of land. Mr. Kindra suggested changing the word "lot" to "parcel." Mrs. Boring inquired about those situations in which the developer has a great planned district, but it doesn't get implemented. Later, application is made to have it rezoned. Mr. Johnson stated that the City doesn't have to rezone it. It can force the developer to stay with the original planned development which was approved. Mrs. Boring stated that a lawyer could make the case that the business, community and traffic have changed, and the City has to allow the rezoning. Mr. Johnson stated that the City does not have to buy into their logic. If it does not make sense for the City, do not rezone it. Unless the City is breaking constitutional law, they would not be required to rezone it. Mr. Weinstein stated that previous administrations have caused themselves some problems with the overuse of planned districts. When specially crafted projects for a particular developer fall apart, it may be found illegal for the City to attempt to force that plan on subsequent developers. However, if the area has a straight zoning and an application for rezoning is made, unless a taking can be proven, the City can reject the rezoning request. What he sees more often is, for example, a 400- acre PUD which is developed in three stages, and somewhere before stage three, there is a dramatic shift in market conditions. This happens frequently, and it is not inappropriate for the developer to come back and try to redo the unit. There is nothing wrong with that if the new proposal makes sense for both the City and the developer. The difference is in making a change that is in the best interests of the community as opposed to a proposal that is only in the developer's interest. The courts should be able to distinguish between the two. Mr. Seidel stated than property owners have the right to apply for a rezoning of their property at any time or number of times to obtain the best value for their property. However, it shouldn't be easy to resubdivide a subdivision. Zoning Code Review Team Apri130, 2001 Page 12 Article 8 -Development Standards. Mr. Johnson inquired if the standards meet the expectations in general. Mrs. Boring stated that most deed restrictions are tighter than this document provides, and inquired if the City wants to allow all the accessory uses, such as numerous storage sheds or garages. Mr. Johnson stated that the concern is not with the accessory use itself, rather the number of accessory uses allowed on one lot. Mrs. Boring stated that a smaller lot should be restricted from placing a storage shed next to their neighbor's house. Mr. Johnson stated that they could theoretically have a couple of accessory structures, but cumulatively, they could not exceed 720 feet, which is rather restrictive. That amount is not to exceed 30 percent of the livable area, so if the house is 1,000 sq. feet, they could only have 300 feet in accessory structure. Mrs. Boring inquired about the possibility of an owner wanting to divide that amount. One shed at 720 feet is not as obnoxious as three sheds at 200 sq. feet each along the back property line. She inquired what occurs when the phone company wants to put one oftheir boxes on that property. Mr. Johnson stated that he would make a note to address this in a later session. IVIr. Reiner inquired if tree waivers are addressed. Ms. Newcomb stated that has not yet been added. Ms. Sprague that 8.25 is where the Telecommunications concerns -satellite dishes, would be addressed. Mr. Seidel stated that he will forward Engineering's concerns for this article to Mr. Johnson. Mr. Reiner stated that under Landscaping, in 8-29, an H could be added that all plant material grown above or below the "5" plant zone cannot be planted/grown in Dublin. The intent should be made to limit southern plants being shipped/planted in Dublin. To enforce this, Council should be able to inspect the landscaping that is being shipped to Dublin for installation on its rights-of--way while it is yet on the trucks. IVIs. Clarke stated that this provision should already be included in the Code. Mr. Sprague, page 8-22, Home Occupations, asked how the 300-sq. ft. maximum space could be enforced. Zoning Code Review Team Apri130, 2001 Page 13 Mr. Johnson stated that it is difficult, as it is not appropriate to go into the homes and measure the space. Mr. Sprague inquired about the restriction that use of commercial vehicles for pick up and delivery, other than UPS and other express couriers, is not permitted. Mr. Weinstein stated that this protects against commercial vehicles coming in and loading/unloading heavy equipment/furniture on a daily business. Mrs. Boring inquired how to distinguish traffic that is greater than appropriate for a normal residential neighborhood (H). Ms. Clarke stated that number is defined as more than ten trips a day. Mrs. Boru7g, page 8-50, asked that the document be as restrictive as possible in regard to satellite dishes. She added that the City should be able to regulate the size of dishes. Mr. Weinstein stated that the U.S. Congress has decided that these forms of telecommunication and reception are more important than local government of land use. Mr. Adamek, page 8-52, asked if Sexually Oriented Business restrictions have been fully addressed. He recalls the ordinances having many more provisions than are noted in these two paragraphs. Ms. Readler responded that this has been split up in different sections ofthe code. Mr. Sprague inquired about the 750 feet restriction. Mr. Weinstein stated that he and Ms. Readler are studying this section carefully. What does the City want to accomplish with this section? They will attempt to word it to achieve that purpose. Mr. Adamek stated that the City Code should be limited to respecting their constitutional right to operate. Mr. Johnson noted that the C 1 district is the only district in which this type of business can be placed. Mr. Adamek noted that Mr. Kindra will address all the stormwater issues, and the Planning Division will address the signage issues. Mr. Marshall noted that the subcommittee recommendations regarding sign issues would be incorporated into this; for instance, a change of a 15-ft maximum height for ground signs to 6-ft. maximum height monument signs. Mr. Sprague, page 8-57, noted that the changeable copy sign issue has not been resolved. Zoning Code Review Team Apri130, 2001 Page 14 Ms. Clarke responded that Council referred that legislation to Planning Commission. A demo has recently been set up at Karrer Middle School. There has not been much feedback to date. Mr. Johnson stated that this issue would reflect how legally defensible Council wants their Code to be. If Council allows the school to use this type of sign, a precedent ~~~ill be set for this use in the community. Otherwise, businesses could claim the school has had preferential treatment. Mr. Sprague suggested that the signs could be limited to schools, charitable or not-for-profit organizations. Mr. Weinstein responded that the First Amendment does not differentiate between the right to speech for profit ornot-for-profit institutions. There is some distinction between commercial and non-commercial speech; however, not-for-profit institutions can be engaged in commercial speech. The City should not decide who gets to speak more; that is favoring one over another. The City could be accused of making choices akin to censorship in violation of the equal protection clause. It is better to treat all signs according to the restrictions of the property; that is invulnerable. Refrain from allowing different kinds of uses different signs. Article 9 -Subdivision Plat Standards Mr. Seidel noted that they would refer some clarifications to the consultants. There were no other concerns noted. Article 10 - Design Standards for Subdivisions Mr. Reiner suggested a prerequisite that the homeowner associations approve plans before they are submitted to Planning and Zoning. Muirfield Association is interested in returning to that practice. Mr. Adamek noted that some associations, such as Muirfield, were set up with a review board. Others, such as his, are voluntary and/or do not have review boards. Mr. Readler stated that they are working on this with the Building Department. Ms. Clarke stated that Ballentrae will be set up with a review committee. Mr. Marshall stated that staff would need to formulate a list of all the subdivisions this requu•ement could affect. Mr. Readler stated that they are looking at ways of notifying the homeowner associations which have design review boards. Mr. Marshall stated that they need to be aware that the City's approval does not waive the responsibility to comply with deed restrictions. Article 11 -Construction Standards Zoning Code Review Team Apri130, 2001 Page 15 Mr. Johnson noted that this is across-reference to the construction standards rather than having all those standards codified. No change was noted. Article 12 - Nonconforming Structures, Lots, and Uses No changes. Article 13 - Administration No changes. Mr. Johnson said that at the next workshop, they would review Articles, 2, 3, 4 and 5, the districts, in detail. They will look at actual language and any suggestions for permitted uses or conditional uses that should be added. They will try to have a master list of other types of land uses that could be considered. Ms. Clarke stated that the Code revision is her primary assignment for now, so feel free to call with any questions. l~Ir. Reiner moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Adamek seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Submitted by: Assistant Clerk of Council