OPENING: Mayor Hellar called the special joint workshop of the city council to order on Tuesday, January 26, 2010, at 5:30 p.m. in the council chambers at City Hall, 1123 Lake.
ROLL CALL: Council members Snedden, Logan, Reuter, Ogilvie, Davis and Schuck were present. Planning Commission members Herrera, Huisman, Rognstad, Hyde and Qualls were present.
B. PLANNING COMMISSION APPOINTMENT
Councilwoman Logan moved to confirm the appointment of John O’Hara to the Planning Commission for a term of three years expiring January 2013. Councilman Reuter seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously by council.
C. INTRODUCTIONS
Each council member and Planning Commission member provided a brief introduction of themselves, which included their years of Sandpoint residency, community service and employment.
D. EXPECTATIONS
Planning Director Jeremy Grimm provided a brief explanation as to the responsibilities of the Planning Commission. He explained to Councilwoman Logan commercial structures that consist of an addition of more than 2,000 square feet trigger a site plan review, which is an administrative process to make sure the addition and structure meet all the requirements. If Planning Commission knew of all the permits and site plan review that the planning department was expediting, the commission could request review, but city code provides that it is up to the Planning Director’s discretion whether to bring them to the Planning Commission for their advice. Public hearings are held for zone changes, subdivisions and comprehensive plan amendments in front of the Planning Commission, with recommendations going to city council.
Councilwoman Logan commented the only method of communication she has from the Planning Commission is by attending their meetings and by reading their minutes. She stressed their minutes are lacking and suggested that the Planning Commission minutes be more detailed. She appreciated that they worked towards consensus but encouraged the use of motions to emphasize positions on issues. Councilman Reuter added the minutes provide the supporting reasons for their motions, such as containing the argument for the motion.
Councilman Schuck suggested there be more specific timelines and for the Planning Commission to set goals so he knows what to expect. He said he would like to see the material and have better communication with the Planning Commission. He agreed that
the information provided should be more detailed, particularly when it relates to the comprehensive plan. Councilwoman Logan referred to the Implementation Chapter of the comprehensive plan, which provides a target date. Councilwoman Ogilvie suggested that city council and the Planning Commission meet once a year or every six months. Mayor Hellar suggested the governing bodies meet once a year at the beginning of each year. Councilman Snedden’s perspective is the Planning Commission determines the built environment more than city council and felt this meeting was important because city council doesn’t hear a lot about the issues that the Planning Commission sees. He stated the planning aspect is incorporated into the comprehensive plan and felt it was valuable. He thanked the Planning Commission for their service.
Commissioner Qualls suggested not restricting the joint meetings to just one per year, that it was important to have city council input more often. Commissioner Huisman agreed that city council should be provided more detail. She suggested everyone use the comprehensive plan as a guideline. Commissioner Rognstad appreciated the lively debate from city council and appreciated their attention to detail. He hoped the Planning Commission would model the council’s lively debate, as well as providing detail and clarity. Councilwoman Logan added that everyone should also use the existing city code and state code in their research.
E. DISCUSSION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Jeremy Grimm noted the recently adopted comprehensive plan sets a course for the city over the next 20 years and, in order to implement and succeed with the vision, it was an important step in developing the zoning that governs the built environment.
Councilman Snedden felt the most important goals and policies aimed for more traditional neighborhoods, with straight grid patterns for the benefit of street connectivity, benefits for traffic, walking and mobility. It provides more activity downtown and focuses on events. Councilwoman Logan believed the downtown will be a functioning town like Sandpoint used to be and hoped the code development would facilitate that goal. She stated that she wants a car dealership and dry cleaner in town and, hopefully some day, a grocery store downtown. Commissioner Rognstad added downtown should have a production capacity with concern for dwindling manufacturing and industrial space. He felt this was important to protect and encouraged small scale manufacturing or production in all the high context areas, such as in the CA-5 areas. Councilman Reuter referred to the comprehensive plan land use map as a long term vision and should not rush when accomplishing rezoning. He said while adding density and modifying uses overtime, those changes should occur over a 20 year period. He noted the goals and policies are very important, but the challenge is how to accomplish them. Councilman Schuck concurred. He stated it should be considered that people base their decision when purchasing land on the comprehensive plan. He urged everyone to “make it happen.”
Commissioner Rognstad asked what the thresholds are for rate of occupancy and when to rezone a district. He felt there should be discussion on thresholds, such as when to increase density in areas. Mayor Hellar pointed out the prior city council desired mixed use with higher density on the Renova site, with the approach to encourage or restrict the development the city wants. Commissioner O’Hara stated the Planning Commission does a lot of reacting based on the market. He felt there was a cautious balance between direction in the right way and reacting to what the market forces dictate.
Jeremy Grimm stated land inventory monitoring is a process that maintains commercial, residential and industrial lands by looking at the vacancy and capacity rates with the goal to take the peaks and valleys out and to know when the city needs to expand to add more commercial and residential zoning at an appropriate time in order to keep the market level. Councilman Reuter believed downtown property and other commercial property could be more valuable, even with more restrictions which allow more density and height.
Jeremy Grimm explained that land use regulations impact urban fabric, built environment, community, downtown, people, places, quality of life, service demand, efficiency of services, taxes, health, storm water and tax base. He referred to the case of Village of Euclid, a suburb of Cleveland, Ohio, vs. Amber Realty, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that zoning ordinances are a legitimate exercise of police powers. He stated the regulatory hierarchy of the Sandpoint comprehensive plan provides vision, directives, goals, policies and land use map with zoning as land use regulation, bulk and dimensional allowances and ordinances. He referred to Idaho Code 67-6511, which provides that zoning districts shall be in accordance with the policies set forth in the adopted comprehensive plan. He provided history of the 2009 Sandpoint comprehensive plan, which had a two year process with a 2029 horizon. He referred to Chapter 3, Design Directive, regarding growth, mixed-use development in Chapter 3, Community Design, and Policy CD-3, Goal C, which provides that the location of the buildings emphasize the relationship to the street, encourage pedestrian access and establish identities of individual districts and mixed use neighborhoods. He explained the reason why the code is being changed is because the existing code is inconsistent with the vision, goals and directives of the comprehensive plan, the preferred development pattern “fabric” will not be realized without changes, and, according to Idaho Code, the zoning districts shall be in accordance with the policies set forth in the adopted comprehensive plan.
Councilman Snedden said we tend to look at zoning as quality of life, but there was a need to look at the fiscal impact in the future. He pointed out taxes are raised because of development pattern. He said if the city doesn’t break even on the cost to provide city services to developments, the rest of the users on the water system are subsidizing
the use for everyone. He commented he is a stronger advocate for some of the zoning measures for the long term fiscal impact, not just because of quality of life. Councilman Schuck pointed out the developer pays for infrastructure, and the builder pays for the impact fees. Councilman Snedden added the city pays for those services for future years and should be aware of maintenance and service costs, particularly the water treatment plant. Councilman Reuter concurred. He noted less people live downtown today than 20 years ago, which is not because of market but because of zoning choices. Councilman Schuck agreed with a goal to bring quality of life downtown by encouraging people to live on second floors. Mr. Grimm stated this is an important element as the town becomes desirable, but affordability should be maintained.
Councilwoman Logan noted the mayor instituted a policy that when staff provides information to one council member, that staff provides the same information to the entire city council. She felt it would be more productive to have joint discussions on the proposed codes that are forwarded to the Planning Commission. City Attorney Will Herrington advised if staff feels a question has some personal element or is individualized to the council members or Planning Commission, such as a conflict of interest, that it won’t necessarily be shared with city council. He said the distinction between quasi-judicial and legislative often are mixed, such as the commercial rezones as relation to the code, which are possibly legislative, but when there are issues with individual property that will be rezoned, there will be a quasi-judicial element where it should be reserved for discussion at public meetings. He emphasized that whenever there is a question regarding conflict of interest, they need to consult with the city attorney.
Jeremy Grimm explained the Planning Commission will be deliberating on the merits for Item F on this evening’s agenda, with the benefit of sharing the questions. Councilwoman Logan raised concern that there would be interference with the public hearing process. Mr. Grimm noted the Planning Commission has continued their hearing to February 2, 2010, with the ability to hear the questions from city council. Mr. Herrington advised there is no concern with discussion of the elements but to avoid discussion of boundaries and specific properties that will be under consideration. He said if the city council discusses policies or element of the ordinance, this would be allowed in order to understand their concerns. He encouraged city council to hear the elements but not to deliberate about what the decision will be.
Mayor Hellar called for a break at 6:55 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 7:08 p.m.
F. REZONE REQUEST FOR LANDS WITHIN THE CITY OF SANDOINT ACI
Jeremy Grimm explained this is a rezone request for land located with the Area of City Impact (ACI). He stated Bonner County forwarded a notice to the City but the notice didn’t provide the proper 40 day period authorized in Sandpoint’s Area of City Impact agreement with Bonner County. He explained the Planning Commission will provide their recommendation to city council and city council will provide their recommendation to Bonner County. He said the property lies within the ACI and is designated as very rural. He referred to the City’s comprehensive plan that provides the definition of very rural designation. He responded to questions about the potential for establishing a Transfer of Development Rights System, and said, based on the Transfer for Development Right (TDR), there is a concern within the ACI regarding the divine right to develop the property at a higher density than the City prefers. He stated that, with a TDR, it identifies within the rural area what their capacity of development is. He explained that, in order to provide a market mechanism to compensate the property owners, a sending and receiving area would need to be created. He said, when land is developed, the developer can buy development right from the sending area, which would create an incentive within the city for the ability of the property owners within the ACI to be compensated. He said that establishing such a program is an eight month to year long process. He suggested referring to the comprehensive plan but that guidance is limited for deliberation. He said the current property zoning is 20 acres minimum lot size with the Littles splitting their property with a family exemption. He said if the property is adjacent or within the existing service boundary, they could apply to the Public Works Department for a new tap into the city’s water. He explained the Planning Commission could recommend to support or not to support the request for rezone with no binding authority.
He replied to Commissioner Huisman that he wasn’t familiar with County zoning designations but that they are requesting 5 acre allowances in Rural 5. He pointed out Bonner County Planning Director Clare Marley explained there was a family exemption allowance to split the property. The question would be whether the city would request the County to develop zoning that mirrors the City’s comprehensive plan designations, to look at annexation of property in the ACI in an effort to zone what the City feels appropriate or to continue to send recommendations on a case by case basis.
Commissioner Rognstad felt it important to be proactive to see where the County stands in terms of allowing Sandpoint to determine how the ACI is developed. He suggested moving forward with an annexation proposal or other alternative, such as compatible zoning. He suggested, based on Goal CD-2, Policy E, to deny the expansion of urban service, as the development goes against the policy. He stated the property borders the water service boundary, and, regardless of the decision, they could apply for service along the frontage. He didn’t think the City should facilitate higher density development within the ACI.
Will Herrington reversed his opinion on one issue. He advised if the Planning Commission wanted to allow the city council to ask questions, it would be a benefit to reflect city council concerns. Jeremy Grimm added that Bonner County has advertised and will hold a public hearing on this issue on February 9, 2010, so these bodies can have the opportunity to provide their recommendations. He explained the existing Ag/4-20 is very rural and should consider future development, as well as whether the future layout is less efficient and more costly. Councilman Schuck asked if there could be consideration on topography for potential build out. Commissioner Rognstad pointed out the letter from Marty Taylor addresses those issues with an analysis of composition of parcels and that the summary is adequate for the rezone. Commissioner Herrera felt topography is a relevant issue. Jeremy Grimm explained to Commissioner O’Hara that the application impacts two parcels of County zoning and can make a recommendation on each parcel. He said the collection point for the City’s water treatment is further upstream. He confirmed the City owns property within the ACI, with the County stating they forwarded notice of public hearing to the City on December 18, 2009, but that the City didn’t receive the notice.
Commissioner Huisman stated that, according to the County’s staff report, the request for rezoning is in agreement with the County’s comprehensive plan, but it is not in agreement with the city’s comprehensive plan. She said there should be consideration as to whether to allow this type of development, as it will increase the costs for the city over a period of time. She asked why the city has to provide water service. Mr. Grimm explained the County’s comprehensive plan doesn’t mesh with the city’s comprehensive plan is obligated to service land that is within the city service boundary. Commissioner Huisman felt, if it won’t cost the city money, then it would be a factor in their favor but a factor against them if it does. Jeremy Grimm replied to Councilman Reuter the County is making a zoning change within their comprehensive plan.
Councilwoman Logan referred to the County’s request to amend the comprehensive plan map to Rural Residential and the zoning map to Rural 5. She noted that it did not include that the property owner has determined that city services will be provided. She also questioned whether the properties are in fact adjacent to water service area. Mr. Herrington stated an argument could be made that neither of the properties qualify for services because they are not within the city’s water service boundary. Mr. Grimm replied to Commissioner Hyde that the comprehensive plan is inconsistent with the County’s plan and that this has been the first issue since adoption of the City’s comprehensive plan. Councilwoman Logan reminded the Planning Commission there was a request for approval within the ACI based on the prior comprehensive plan within the last year, which city council recommended against because of the increased density and the cost of services.
Commissioner Rognstad moved to DENY the proposed amendment to Bonner County’s Comprehensive Plan use map and Bonner County’s zoning map File AM-102-08, based upon the following conclusions:
1. Under Goal CD-2, Policy E, Resource Conservation, to deny extension of urban service in ACI for low density development.
2. The majority of the site does not fit within the City’s services boundary.
The decision is based upon evidence submitted up to the time the staff report was prepared and testimony received at this hearing, and further moved to adopt the foregoing findings of facts and conclusions of law as amended. This action does not result in a taking. Commissioner Qualls seconded the motion and added Sandpoint’s comprehensive plan’s reference to preserving open spaces as another reason to deny the request.
Commissioner O’Hara moved to amend the motion to deny that the zone change is not in keeping with the Sandpoint comprehensive plan, specifically Goal CD-2, Natural Resources, Policy A, D, and F in reference to the ACI. Commissioner Rognstad seconded the motion to amend.
Commissioner Herrera raised concern about making a recommendation that would devalue the land and didn’t feel he had enough information. Commissioner Hyde concurred. She felt working with the County would be an opportunity to reach a healthy compromise when developing the land. She asked if recommendations could be made in order to control certain types of development. Commissioner Herrera agreed with the motion to not allow the rezone but questioned whether there was a plan to reconcile the City’s comprehensive plan with the County’s plan. Jeremy Grimm responded that it would not devalue the land because higher density zoning is not a divine right, but the County already has the right to establish their existing zone. Bonner County would make the final decision. Commissioner Huisman supported denial and would not encourage piecemeal zoning in order to come to an ultimate political understanding.
The motion to amend was passed unanimously by the Planning Commission.
The motion to deny the request passed unanimously by the Planning Commission.
Mayor Hellar announced the city council would proceed with the recommendations from the Planning Commission. Councilman Reuter felt this would be a hostile rezone and didn’t feel it would be in the best interest of the city’s water district to serve the property. He noted both the City’s and County’s comprehensive plans match.
Councilwoman Logan moved that Sandpoint City Council advise Bonner County Planning Department that the City recommends denial of the proposed amendment to the County’s Comprehensive Plan map from Ag/Forestry land to Rural Residential and to deny amendment of the zoning map from Ag/Forest-20 to Rural 5 based on the provisions of Sandpoint’s Comprehensive Plan, which discourage extension of City services to low density development, based on the definition of context area very rural, Goal C-2, Policy A, Locate population intensity in and near the downtown and where urban services are readily available, Policy E, deny extension of urban service in ACI for low density development, Goal PS-1, Public Services, Policy C, arrange land uses and public services systems to make them as efficient as practicable and Goal NR/H-1, Resource Protection, Policy F, Concentrate growth within city limits. Councilman Reuter seconded the motion.
Councilman Reuter moved to amend to add to the motion “as property owner within the proposed the rezone, the City of Sandpoint strongly opposes the rezone.” Councilwoman Logan seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously by council.
The motion to deny the request passed unanimously by roll call vote of council.
G. OVERVIEW OF COMMERCIAL D ZONE CHANGE
Jeremy Grimm explained the existing commercial zones are inconsistent with the comprehensive plan with staff’s recommendation to split into three separate zones, Downtown Specific Zone, Commercial A Zone and Commercial D Zone. He said there are four properties that are not currently zoned commercial, such as the triangle piece near the Federal Building, which is zoned Industrial. Across from Panhandle State Bank is zoned Professional Office, behind Safeway is zoned commercial neighborhood, and a portion of Second Avenue is zoned Professional Office. He noted the intent is to take the existing commercial zones out of the code and replace with three new zones.
He reviewed the purpose of the Downtown Specific Zone is to establish the requirements for building and site design for new developments and for the significant modification of existing developments within the designated downtown core area. He explained the Downtown Specific Zone is the foundation for all three zones. He noted it’s defined in every type of use in every zone with the attempt to replace with a form based zone with focus on the fabric or building environment. He reviewed the uses permitted in the Downtown Specific Zone. He noted the comprehensive plan encourages mixed use in residential components for the upper floor. He noted a conditional use permit would be required if no residential component is included and is required if the buildings are greater than 20,000 square feet. Drive-through fast food is prohibited for restaurants, catering, prepared food services for on-site consumption, retail bakeries, and candy/ice cream shops but that drive-through uses are subject to approval through conditional use permit for wholesale, restaurants, banks and financial institutions.
He reviewed the changes to maximum front setbacks that would have a maximum allowable front yard setback of 10 feet. Exceptions to this requirement may be approved for structures that provide pedestrian amenities and between the building façade and street sidewalk with no minimum front setback. A maximum building height of 35 feet is allowed to encourage residential, but 65 feet would be allowed where residential uses represent 85% of the floor area of the structure exceeding 35 feet. He said it was important to the Planning Commission that setbacks not apply to unenclosed porches or balconies, and a maximum height of any portion of structure within 50 feet of a residential zoning district property line or the property line of undeveloped residential land shall be 35 feet. He reviewed building design standards and building orientation with buildings having their primary entrances(s) oriented to the street. He explained to Councilman Reuter this aspect is preferable as it makes the building more open and inviting. Commissioner Rognstad noted another important element is that the corner entrance is equally accessible to both adjacent streets. Councilwoman Logan noted that, traditionally, those buildings built in downtown have a corner entrance feature.
Mr. Grimm reviewed storefront design with criteria to be used for architectural features with the condition that slight deviation be authorized at the discretion of the Planning Director, so long as the spirit of the code is maintained. He explained this code section would prevent unattractive walls for pedestrians along the street. Structures along Sand Creek shall maintain a 40 foot setback from the high water mark of the creek, as established at full summertime pool elevation of 2,062 feet. Building materials would have strict requirements in order to discourage glare, windows cannot be covered permanently on the interior by more than 20%, and exposed unfinished concrete or monotonous walls of corrugated metal shall not be permitted as a finished exterior. There will be a pedestrian amenities section, relationship of buildings to streets and parking, and there shall be no maximum residential density standard. Parking garages in no case shall have any portion of lot frontage developed with surface parking. Light manufacturing is allowed only when occurring in conjunction with a permitted retail or service use that is in the storefront location. Maximum floor area devoted to light manufacturing is limited to 4,000 square feet in any individual establishment. Outdoor displays, sales, services and minor equipment are permitted accessory uses, provided they follow certain criteria. Booths, stalls, carts or other equipment for outdoor displays shall be removed or immobilized and secured in order to prevent public safety hazards, nuisance or security risk, and those that are non ancillary to the primary business would require a conditional use permit.
Mr. Grimm reviewed the proposed Commercial A Zone with the purpose of establishing requirements for building and site design for new developments and for the significant modification of existing developments within the designated zoning district, with focus on new and modification to existing developments. Buildings with greater than a 20,000 square foot building footprint are subject to a conditional use permit, and a percentage of office, clinic and non-sales tax generating uses on the ground floor in a building shall not exceed 25%, applied to medical and dental offices, personal and professional services, public parking lots and garages, retail trade and wholesale. Drive-through services are subject to an approved conditional use permit but are prohibited within 150 feet of any residential zone. Maximum front setbacks would have a maximum allowable front yard setback of 10 feet, with an additional 20-foot exception for structures that provide pedestrian amenities placed between the building façade and street sidewalk. The maximum building height may increase to 65 feet where residential uses represent 100% of the floor area of the structure exceeding 35 feet. It may be increased to 65 feet where 51% of required parking for the structure is incorporated in the structure. Buildings with a footprint exceeding 20,000 square feet will require a conditional use permit, such as surface parking, circulation amenities, facades and exterior walls, including sides and backs, roofs, materials, entryways, building design, and loading zones. Parking areas shall not have more than 20% of lot frontage developed with surface parking. Outdoor displays shall not exceed 20% of the retail floor area of the primary business.
Mr. Grimm reviewed the draft CA-4 zoning language and defined floor area ratio as the total building square footage (building area) divided by the site size square footage (site area). He stated this is a tool to encourage density. He explained the percentage of office, clinic, and non-sales tax generating uses to total uses on the ground floor in a building shall not exceed 25% for offices and public parking lots and garages and are exempt from minimum floor area ratios identified under code 9-3-7-1. He reviewed the proposals for building setbacks for property abutting residential districts and maximum heights and height increase of buildings containing residences or structured parking. Building types and minimum floor area ratio (FAR) with building types, such as mixed use, apartments and condominiums, town homes, and office/retail which provides these, will be allowed in the Commercial B District. No building shall have a footprint that exceeds 20,000 square feet without an approved conditional use permit for surface parking, circulation amenities, facades and exterior walls, including sides and back, roofs, materials, entryways, building design and loading zones. In no case shall more than 10% of lot frontage be developed with surface parking for parking, garages and driveways. If it is shown to be infeasible due to the size, orientation or other constraint unique to a subject parcel, said parking standards may be modified to allow up to 20% of lot frontage to be developed with surface parking through a conditional use permit.
Jeremy Grimm reviewed Chapter 7, Nonconforming Buildings and Uses. Under the existing code, automobile sales and service shops should be operated in an enclosed building, with the proposal taking it from a divine right to a conditional use permit. The current code provides that, if there is a non-conforming use of a structure, it may, upon the issuance of a nonconforming use permit by the city, be changed to another nonconforming use, provided that the city shall find that all conditions are met. The intent is to allow existing structures and uses to continue in their operations through the issuance of a non-conforming use permit. The only restriction to a non- conforming use is if there was added content, with the expansions triggering the code. He said the Planning Commission has discussed allowing some expansion based on evaluation or square footage and to provide some flexibility in the code to allow it to happen. He stated the Planning Commission focused on the byway project regarding the setbacks on Sand Creek. Commissioner Rognstad noted there was no place that was developable along Sand Creek because of a steep embankment. Councilwoman Davis commented that the city’s setback on Sand Creek was not consistent with the County’s setback. Jeremy Grimm explained conditional use permits have up to eight criteria, and the Planning Commission can add conditions as well as a time limit.
Councilwoman Logan raised concern regarding the number of non-conforming uses and how they’re created. She said if the issue is brought forward to city council that she have information on every non-conforming affected entity. She raised concern regarding the requirements of residential over 35 feet because, under the comprehensive plan, this was encouraged but not a requirement. Jeremy Grimm explained to Councilman Schuck that the code allows the city to issue non-conforming use permits which were under existence on the effective date of the zoning ordinance. There will be notification in the newspaper for zone changes and would make the issue much broader. He explained to Councilwoman Ogilvie the intent is to allow the existing building environment to continue as it currently exists, but if they expand the structure, it will trigger the requirements of the land use with the exception of vehicle sales.
Councilman Reuter felt non-conforming use was inevitable if it’s rezoned reflecting the comprehensive plan and is necessary if there are changes to the direction of development. He suggested not setting pricing through zoning but to create small retail and residential spaces with an attempt to allow diversity of spaces, particularly with large buildings. He was confused with the proposed Commercial A Zone that would allow a big box store but not a doctor’s office. He felt there should be diversity on sizes for retail, office and residential units, promotion of pedestrian and multi-modal connections and looking at potential relief on parking requirements. Jeremy Grimm replied to Councilman Snedden the code doesn’t require any modifications to historic structures on the historic registry or those in the existing build environment and allows their continued occupancy in the current format. Councilman Reuter commented the comprehensive plan also refers to the historic feel within town. Councilwoman Logan added that the code should have language that perpetuates the existence of current revered buildings, whether or not they are designated on the National Historic Registry, in order to have encouragement to preserve the existing structures. Jeremy Grimm said one way to encourage retaining existing structures is to make it onerous, so that if someone wants to change the structure, the change must conform to the code. Councilman Schuck requested a definition on revered and an historical building. Councilwoman Logan stated city and state code defines historical structures. Jeremy Grimm confirmed the area between Fourth Avenue, Larch Street, Alder Street and Sand Creek will remain as Professional Office but that the comprehensive plan reflects this area should be a CA-5 in the future but that he wanted to add very little commercial inventory as possible. Jeremy Grimm referred to City Code 9-13-6 that design limitations will not be enforced where historic buildings are being remodeled or reconstructed in a fashion consistent with the existing building.
Councilwoman Logan commented that she disliked the format of the new codes and requested they be user friendly. She felt they were difficult to understand and preferred to see a revision of what currently exists. She stressed the translation process is problematic. Councilman Reuter concurred and stressed the importance of moving forward and encouraged haste. He hoped the Planning Commission would resolve the matter quickly within a 60 day time period as it was difficult for the public to be engaged in a long period of time. He felt city council needed one hour or more to review the proposed codes. Jeremy Grimm stated if there was any particular element of the current existing Commercial D Zone that they feel are exceptional, to contact him or provide their input via e-mail. Councilman Reuter added the overlay zone was worth looking at.
ADJOURNMENT The special joint meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
Gretchen A. Hellar, Mayor
ATTEST: Maree Peck, City Clerk
