Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Code Site Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council reviews draft site-development chapter to replace zoning code Appendix A; item returned for further public process
Summary
Staff described a draft replacement of zoning code Appendix A (Article 11) as a new site-development chapter to clarify application processes, exemptions and traffic impact analysis requirements; council agreed the item needs a public hearing and will return March 18 for action.
Council members discussed a lengthy rewrite of zoning code Article 11 (Appendix A) and a proposal to move supplementary district regulations and site-development procedures into a new code chapter (referred to as Chapter 26) during the March 3 meeting.
Staff explained the proposed change would delete Section 11 (supplementary district regulations) in its entirety and move the site-development process and related standards into a new, expanded chapter that more explicitly defines application procedures, exemptions, requirements for traffic impact analyses (TIAs), and items typically used by other cities in development review. Staff said single-family, duplex and agricultural uses on a lot were proposed as exemptions from the site-development process; all other uses would potentially go through the expanded site-development process.
Key elements staff described in the draft included: clearer application steps and exemptions; a requirement for traffic impact analyses for developments projected to generate threshold trip counts (staff referenced a screening threshold of 100 peak-period trips); better definition of required studies and submittals (for example traffic studies) and development-agreement options where applicants and the council could negotiate mitigation instead of conducting a full TIA. Staff said the draft brings Robinson’s process in line with standards used by other growing cities.
Council members asked for a short, plain-language summary of the proposed changes and discussed whether the item should be placed on consent or returned for discussion and public hearing. A councilmember noted that the change involves deletion and transfer of existing code language, and the group agreed the change requires a public hearing and additional review. Staff confirmed the item will be brought back at a future meeting for public consideration; no final action was taken at this meeting.
Ending: Staff will prepare a condensed summary of changes, confirm statutory notice requirements for a public hearing, and return the ordinance/amendment for council action on the next docketed public meeting date.
