04-05-2010 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION April 5, 2010 APPROVED 45 those issues and to work toward a completed study, staff is requesting further council L 46 discussion of certain plan elements. Those are: 47 48 - Are painted turn lanes at major intersections acceptable? 49 -Are the proposed signal locations acceptable? 50 - Is the proposed ultimate design from Centerville Rd to 20th Av acceptable? 51 - Are the planned backage roads/local connections acceptable? 52 - Are medians constructed at signals(with turn lane) locations acceptable? 53 -Is a four-lane roadway without median and/or painted median acceptable? 54 -Are there any changes to the proposed landscaping/trail elements? 55 56 It was noted by a council member that this is a situation where improvements for the 57 corridor are wanted but there are some distinct problems with the study—elements such 58 as right-in/right-out only. Something more workable in the short term is probably the 59 answer; it must be the right balance of safety to convenience. The council offered 60 feedback on each of the questions. 61 62 Director Grochala also revisited the council's request for a possible referendum to 63 consider traffic signal projects for the intersections of Ware Road/Birch Street and Lake 64 Drive/Main Street. With this year's change that moves the primary election date up,the 65 deadline for submitting a referendum has become August 19. Staff would need to get 66 signal justification studies underway if the council is serious about the referendum. 67 Regarding county participation in a project,they use a cost sharing formula based on L 68 county road involvement; the cost justification study would provide data. The council 69 indicated they would like to move forward with a question to the citizens;the up- front 70 costs such as the study could be rolled into the project(s), if approved. The council 71 recommended that the Charter Commission be informed and also discussed possibilities 72 for public communication efforts. 73 74 3. Review of Ordinance Requirements for Accessory Structures—City Planner 75 Smyser recalled that the council directed staff to report on options, other than a variance, 76 relative to the city's regulations on accessory structures. A variance request has been 77 submitted for the property at 1288 Main Street to allow the addition of an accessory 78 structure for horse training; the council recognized that a variance is not the best way to 79 address this situation and instead will be reviewing overall regulations in place. Mr. 80 Smyser explained the criteria used to determine the number of accessory buildings 81 allowed on properties in the city. He explained the history of how the regulations came 82 into place (a development regulations task force made recommendations). The council 83 could review the criteria, remembering that there must be some regulation of structures, 84 and decide if change is needed. He added that the accessory structure maximum 85 considers only square footage of the property, not zoning designation. Some options for 86 change are to base allowances on a percentage of square footage, or use a stepped 87 percentage system. Any change would first be presented to the Planning&Zoning Board 88 for a public hearing and that's group's review and recommendation. 89 2