PC Minutes
ITEM
NO. 11: COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARDS
Public hearing to
consider adoption of commercial design standards for commercial development.
STAFF
PRESENTATION
Mr. Hauschild introduced the item, a call for
public comment on the proposed Commercial Design Standards. He said a lot of background and process was
covered in the Staff Report, and there was not a lot of new information since
the Commission discussed the standards in late 2004.
Mr. Hauschild said the standards were written
to compliment the new development code, with the intention of amending the
standards by reference into the code.
Although the code had been delayed for at least 6 months, Staff and the
Commercial Design Standards Committee (CDSC) felt it would be appropriate to adopt
the design standards as a stand-alone document until the code was ready.
Mr. Hauschild said it was expected that a
number of changes would be needed to the standards, but these would not be
apparent until they were put into practice.
The delay in the code gave the City a unique opportunity to ‘test-run’
the standards before they were adopted as law.
Support for approval before adoption of the code was also based in the
fact that there were no design standards in place today, and a number of significant
commercial developments were coming forward.
Staff and the CDSC would like to request these developments try applying
the standards to avoid another situation like the one currently existing at 31st
&
The Commission expressed their appreciation for the amount of time and
effort Staff had put into developing the design standards document, praising
both the text and the layout. Staff was
requested to modify the layout to make it clear when information was a
subsection of a previous concept.
Mr. Hauschild was asked to describe the modeling run done with
area developers and consultants. He said
the experiment was productive and a lot of valuable input was gathered. Much of the discussion at the model sessions
centered on mixed use development that was not allowed by the current city code
but would be permitted by the new code.
It was clarified
that Staff recommended approving the Commercial Design Standards as a draft
policy document. This would provide
guidance for developers to see where the City was headed and give weight to
Staff’s request that these standards be applied to new development
proposals. It was established that, if
significant problems were encountered with the standards, Staff would come
forward with a recommended change.
Mr. Hauschild provided proposed language reflecting the
suggestions given at the Study Session.
He said many of the comments from the League of Women Voter’s had been
discussed by the CDSC and he could answer questions about elements that were or
were not incorporated into the document.
There was
specific discussion about the League’s suggestion to limit the number of
monument signs allowed per curb cut.
Staff explained that the Sign Code took precedent on this issue.
PUBLIC HEARING
Betty Lichtwardt spoke on behalf of the League of Women Voters,
reading the League’s letter into the record.
She said the League was concerned about conflicts between the draft
standards and the new development code and had suggested deferring the
standards until the two documents could be considered concurrently. However, she said, provisional adoption of
the document might be acceptable.
Ms. Lichtwardt responded to questioning that the League
understood there was no way to entirely avoid conflicts between the documents. The League suggested that, in any remaining
conflicts, the stricter of the two statements should prevail.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
It was
established that the Commission could approve the document with the added
language developed per Study Session discussion. More language additions and revisions could
be made later, before the document was adopted as part of the development
code. Staff would consider developing
language based on comments from the Commission and the public.
It was noted that
some terms in the definitions section were not actually defined.
It was noted that
the subsection on building orientation stated that a minimum of 60% was to be
occupied by various streetscape elements.
It was suggested that clarifying language about the remaining 40% of
frontage related to parking and access would be dealt with in a separate subsection.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by
Riordan, seconded by Angino to accept the Commercial
Design Standards as a policy manual for the City of
1.
Reevaluation of the manual shall begin
immediately;
2.
Modifications to the manual shall be complete
within 60 days after the adoption of the new Development Code;
3.
Approval of the document shall include specific
changes discussed at the
4.
Public comments presented on
Motion carried 9-0-1. Angino, Eichhorn,
Erickson, Ermeling, Haase,
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Several points
were clarified:
·
The document was not codified, but was intended to
act as a policy manual.
·
Staff would encourage developers to apply the
standards as a guideline.
·
If significant problems are found in using the
standards, the Planning Director may make revisions or Staff will present the
issue for Commission discussion.
·
Nothing in the motion precludes making revisions
to the standards at any time before they are finally amended into the new Development
Code.
·
Staff recommended forwarding the document to the
City Commission with a recommendation to take similar action to make the
standards an interim policy document.
ACTION TAKEN
The motion was
reopened and amended.
Amended motion on
the floor was to accept the Commercial Design Standards as an interim policy
document for the City of
1. Reevaluation of the manual shall
begin immediately;
2. Modifications to the manual shall
be complete within 60 days after the adoption of the new Development Code;
3. Approval of the document shall
include specific changes discussed at the
4. Public comments presented on
Motion carried unanimously, 10-0.