Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />January 9th, 2020 <br />Page 3 of 7 <br /> <br />Ritchie replied that the new sign regulations had been approved in October and had <br />gone into effect in November. Code Enforcement was advertising that there were new <br />regulations in place. Any new sign-related items would come under those guidelines. <br /> <br />Rice asked about the area plans for South Boulder and McCaslin. <br /> <br />Ritchie replied that she was currently working on the design guidelines for those plans. <br />The land-use policies had been reviewed extensively under the Parcel O plan. <br /> <br />Zuccaro noted that the main recommendation that came out of both of the corridor plans <br />was to update the design guidelines. He noted that there was no land-use change policy <br />with the corridor plans, except one policy in the South Boulder Road plan, which called <br />for no longer allowing residential SRUs. <br /> <br />Rice expressed interest in hearing back about the outcomes of the Commission’s <br />discussions. <br /> <br />Zuccaro replied that all of the character areas and districts in the Small Area Plans <br />(SAP), which the Commission had worked on, would be reflected in the design <br />guidelines. <br /> <br />Ritchie added that the Small Area Plan surveys had been informative and would apply <br />to more areas of the city than those two small areas. She thought the height discussions <br />would be relevant, as would the street and setback orientations. <br /> <br />Moline asked how people could track the ongoing City prioritization of the items in the <br />TMP. <br /> <br />Zuccaro responded that there were TMP programs and projects that would need <br />attention in the Capital Implementation Plan (CIP) and that an interdepartmental group <br />would be formed to make recommendations to Council. In addition, the new budget <br />would include a 6-year CIP budget. Staff would start with the TMP priorities and <br />approach Council with next steps. <br /> <br />Moline appreciated that staff was taking an active role in working on the priorities of the <br />TMP. <br /> <br />Zuccaro added that staff was actively working on construction design documents for <br />implementing the Pine Street improvements that were in the TMP. <br /> <br />Ritchie added that the TMP was a useful tool for staff. <br /> <br />Brauneis observed that the work plan was more administrative than it had been in past <br />years when it had included more technical, hands-on projects. He welcomed additional <br />requests from Council. <br /> <br />Williams asked how often staff reviewed the Municipal Code. <br /> <br />5