Staff presents batch of zoning and development code amendments; commissioners ask clarifying questions

Tim and Zenden (planning staff) presented a package of code amendments and clarifications intended to resolve inconsistencies between the 2010 and 2023 codes and to add targeted flexibility or clarifications in several subsections of the zoning and development code.

Key items described by staff included:

- Transitional provisions: Clarify which multi-step applications (outline or final development plans) are governed by the older 2010 code versus the 2023 code, and remove a redundant reference to "site plan" in the transition table.

- Assembly landscaping: A landscaping provision tied to multifamily (RM) zones was noted and staff proposed applying the front-yard-counting rule more broadly where appropriate.

- Minor site-plan notices: Correct an inconsistency so that mailed notice and sign notice are not required for minor site plans, aligning the noticing tables.

- Minor subdivision (formerly "simple subdivision"): Clarify that a minor subdivision plat may create up to three new lots (four total including the original parcel) and rename residual references from "simple subdivision" to "minor subdivision." Also move the subsection for alphabetical order in administrative application sections.

- Zone of annexation: Correct an incorrect reference so the zone-of-annexation provision refers to rezoning criteria, not text-amendment criteria.

- Short-term rental shared-driveway language: Staff proposed striking a requirement that the city be provided a written instrument authorizing short-term rental use of a shared driveway — staff said the earlier language could create a de facto veto for shared-driveway co-owners and may be unnecessary if parking rules are enforced by other means.

- RV and boat storage: Propose allowing RV/boat storage on non-paved surfaces where the operation can be demonstrated to meet the definition of a low-traffic storage yard and not create significant dust; staff said this aligns with existing low-traffic yard provisions.

- Street-improvement responsibility and deferral: Amend conflicting provisions so the exception for deferred improvements applies to perimeter collectors or arterials (not local/unclassified perimeter streets) and remove an overly restrictive new-code limit that only allowed deferrals for properties developed pre-annexation in Mesa County.

- Bulk storage for multifamily: Reintroduce required bulk storage availability for multifamily and attached residential development but remove a rigid maximum-square-footage requirement to allow flexibility.

- Right-of-way landscaping counting and composition: Change a previous mandatory provision that required right-of-way landscaping to be counted toward on-site landscape requirements into a permissive one (“may be counted”) to provide flexibility; staff also proposed changing a strict requirement that 75% of unpaved adjacent right-of-way be covered by tree canopy, shrubs, and ground cover to language allowing any combination of those plant types so the requirement is practical.

- Light fixtures: Change the light fixture height exception to apply to "outdoor recreational facility or outdoor amphitheater" rather than only to sport fields or outdoor amphitheaters so lights for courts or skate parks can be accommodated.

Commissioners asked multiple clarification questions. Krishna asked whether changing "may be counted" shifts discretion to applicants or staff; Tim replied the intent is flexibility but staff will return with clearer language that establishes the administrative implementation procedure. Commissioners also probed the proposed right-of-way landscaping language: several commissioners and staff discussed whether the city wants to preserve strong incentives to plant trees (which provide long-term public value) versus giving developers flexibility to use shrubs or ground cover in constrained spaces. Staff said landscaping plans will continue to be reviewed for suitability and that right-of-way plantings must use approved street-tree species and meet planting standards.

Staff said they will revisit some proposed wording (for example the "may be counted" phrasing and the 75% composition clause) and supply clearer, implementable language in a future draft. The presentation concluded with staff noting the changes were intended to resolve inconsistencies and provide reasonable flexibility; commissioners asked staff to return with refined language for sections where questions remain. There were no formal votes recorded during the presentation.