Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Udc Amendments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Comprehensive code amendments on violations and definitions forwarded to council with edits
Summary
The commission reviewed two text amendments that consolidate enforcement procedures and unify definitions across the Unified Development Code; members asked for clarifying edits and recommended sending both to city council with comments.
The planning and zoning commissions reviewed two related text amendments — one consolidating violations and penalties across the Unified Development Code (TA2502) and another moving and standardizing general provisions and definitions into the new UDC (TA2503) — and instructed staff to forward both drafts to city council with recommended edits.
On the violations-and-penalties draft, staff said the goal was to centralize notification, cure, abatement and penalty procedures and to move dollar fines into a council-adopted fee resolution. Melissa Moritzel, the planner presenting the draft, described it as “an effort to try to clean that up, pull it all into one spot so that the violations and penalties are uniform across any type of violation.”
Commission debate focused on several items:
- Planting and replacement standards: The proposal would make replacement requirements part of enforcement for unauthorized tree removals. The draft included a replacement multiplier (two times DBH) that several commissioners called punitive; some suggested a one-to-one DBH replacement or alternative mitigation mechanisms such as a tree-mitigation bank.
- Penalty structure: Commissioners discussed proposed monetary fines (staff read examples of per-offense amounts) and how cumulative daily fines or multiplied culpability (e.g., multiple people assisting) would be applied. Staff confirmed fines would take effect only after the violator had an opportunity to cure the violation.
- Notice and service: Legal counsel and commissioners cautioned that posting a sign at the property should not substitute for proper service mechanisms under state law. The commission recommended retaining registered mail or hand-delivery as required forms of notice and treating posting as an additional option only where state law permits.
- Abatement timing: Commissioners replaced ambiguous language and asked for a hard minimum abatement period. The commission agreed the abatement period should be “at least 30 days,” allowing staff discretion to extend that period where necessary.
On the definitions/consolidation amendment (TA2503), commissioners requested several clarifications and minor edits: remove the phrase that described “should” as a “preferred requirement,” add or correct technical definitions (for example, change “water plant” to “water and wastewater” where appropriate), and ensure any relocated language is not unintentionally deleted elsewhere in the code. A few commissioners asked staff to confirm where moved language originated so the council packet is complete.
Outcome
The commission voted to forward both TA2502 (violations and penalties) and TA2503 (definitions and general provisions) to council with the commission’s comments and recommended edits. Commissioners asked staff and legal counsel to tighten notice language, set a minimum abatement period of 30 days, revisit the two-times DBH replacement proposal, and provide a clean redline showing deletions and insertions so the council can see what is being replaced in other code sections.
Ending
Staff will prepare revised language and a clear redline of changes for the council packet, including a recommendation on the replacement metric and explicit notice procedures consistent with state service rules.
