Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Unified Development Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Design Review Board endorses UDO clarifications but asks council for legal review
Summary
The Design Review Board issued an advisory opinion to city council on proposed UDO amendments (Articles 3, 4, 13, 19 and 21), supporting several clarifying changes while asking that appeal provisions be narrowed and that the council obtain a legal review before voting.
The Design Review Board voted July 22 to send an advisory opinion to the city council on proposed amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance affecting Articles 3, 4, 13, 19 and 21.
The board said many proposed edits would improve clarity and help preserve historic character—endorsing, for example, an asterisk that would note when building height in historic districts must be subject to DRB approval or a positive advisory opinion to the planning board. But the board warned that some amendments could weaken preservation standards and recommended a narrower appeals process. “The board believes that the only appropriate basis for an appeal to the city council is a claim that the design review board failed to follow the procedures established in the ordinance,” the chair said as part of the reading the board entered into the record.
Board members highlighted specific provisions they support: clarifications to Article 4.4.B (commercial mixed-use development bonus procedure) and updated measurement definitions in Article 21. The board also welcomed the addition of economic-hardship claims to the DRB’s authority, saying it would give the board flexibility to consider factors beyond strict standards. At the same time, members said revisions to demolition review for the architectural district go too far and risk harming significant structures that may not be landmarked.
The board noted it had reviewed the draft over multiple meetings and solicited public input; it asked the council to request legal review from the city’s land-use attorneys before taking final action. The motion to approve the advisory opinion passed. Board member Karen DeAndrea explained on the record that she was abstaining, saying she is newly appointed and disagrees with some positions as drafted but expects further opportunities to participate in the UDO process.
The advisory opinion will be forwarded to city council for consideration and possible revision of the proposed UDO amendments.
