Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City Council adopts tighter multifamily rules, carves out two ‘iconic’ signs from sign limits
Summary
The City Council approved amendments to multifamily development rules that cap units per building and clarify master water-metering, and a separate ordinance exempting two longstanding signs from current sign-size limits while narrowing how the exemption can be applied.
The City Council approved two ordinances addressing multifamily development standards and local sign rules after staff described code cleanups and clarifications recommended by the planning commission.
The first ordinance amends multifamily rules to limit buildings to a maximum of four units, restates an existing limit of 16 units per gross acre, and requires master water meters for multifamily developments unless the city engineer grants an exception. The second ordinance identifies two existing signs on a property south of the council chambers as “iconic” and exempts them from some numerical sign-size, lighting and design calculations while clarifying that the exemption will apply only to signs specifically named in the ordinance.
Mr. Bartlett, a city staff presenter, introduced the multifamily amendment, saying, “multifamily dwelling shall be limited to a maximum of 4 units per building,” and that the change is intended to “loosen up some of the developments” and simplify confusing language about how units-per-acre is calculated. Bartlett told the council the planning commission held a public hearing, received no public comments, and recommended approval.
The ordinance keeps a separate 16-units-per-gross-acre metric and removes an earlier provision that attempted to exclude certain open-space or single-family areas from the unit-count calculations; staff said removing that language matches current application of the rule and reduces confusion.
Staff also told the council that, following a new state statute on plan review, the code will explicitly require master water meters for multifamily developments to avoid tearing up private infrastructure and to simplify homeowners association billing. Bartlett said the ordinance will provide an exception “as determined by the city engineer” for layouts where a single master meter is impractical.
Council discussion focused mostly on the four-units-per-building provision. One council member questioned whether the limit might be too restrictive on highway-fronting parcels, where denser buildings could be more appropriate; Bartlett and other council members noted developers could still pursue a development agreement to seek different terms with counterbalancing community benefits.
On sign regulations, staff described the property just south of the council building that includes the Madox Ranch House and the in-progress Pronghorn bicycle shop. Staff said the property owner asked that two long-standing signs — a large rooftop sign reading “home of the world’s finest beef” and a rotating red crown sign — not be counted against the allowable new signage on the site. Bartlett said the draft ordinance avoids a broad or unintended exemption by (1) excluding billboards from the rule, (2) requiring any eligible sign to be specifically named in the ordinance, and (3) requiring signs to retain their original form, location, typography and appearance to remain exempt.
Bartlett also noted one technical language suggestion in the draft: clarifying that ideological free-speech signs “shall not be subject to regulation provided such shall be located on the owner’s private property and not constitute a nuisance,” to avoid confusion introduced by the word “except.” The planning commission again held a public hearing on the sign ordinance, had no adverse comments, and recommended approval.
Votes at a glance: - Ordinance 25-a (multifamily regulations): Motion to adopt passed (council roll call recorded as yes by Council member Young, Council member Husler, Council member Wright and one additional council member). Tally: yes 4, no 0. Notes: language to include an exception for the city engineer regarding master water meters was accepted as a clarifying parenthetical. - Ordinance 25-b (sign regulations): Motion to adopt passed by roll call vote, 4–0. Yes: Council member Young, Council member Austin, Council member Wright, Council member Tudor. The ordinance specifically names two signs on the site near the Madox Ranch House and exempts them from sign-area calculations so long as they retain original form and are maintained; billboards are excluded from the exemption.
The council also approved routine consent items and heard brief staff updates; no closed session was requested and the meeting adjourned.
