A major focus of the meeting was on amending the city’s public art contribution guidelines. Miss Kathleen Crane, a member of the public art board, was invited to present potential amendments. The current ordinance requires the city to allocate 1% of every capital improvement project up to $50,000 towards public art. The board proposed that private developers should also contribute, suggesting a 0.5% contribution for projects valued over $2 million, with a minimum of $1,000 per lot for subdivisions with more than 25 lots. Exclusions were proposed for affordable housing, single-family homes, duplexes, accessory dwelling units, parking garages, and interior renovations.

A counterproposal recommended lowering the contribution rate to 0.1% for private developers while eliminating the threshold for contributions and removing the cap. This aims to simplify the process and ensure equitable contributions, especially from smaller projects. The amendment was favorably received by some board members, as it would be less burdensome for small businesses and homeowners. Concerns were raised about the impact on citizens, particularly homeowners planning renovations, as the contributions could act as a deterrent. It was highlighted that under the proposed plan, any permit for home improvements would incur a charge, potentially leading to discontent among residents. A consensus emerged around excluding remodeling and repairs from the new requirements to avoid penalizing homeowners.

The council also discussed mitigation strategies for site plans and architectural deviations. Existing codes allow for architectural deviations, and members expressed a desire to extend similar opportunities for site plans. Proposals included creating a comprehensive list of mitigation strategies with a point value system to help applicants understand the value of various contributions, such as providing bike racks.

In another discussion, the council addressed the existing code on tree preservation and development mitigations. The terminology shifted from “complete streets” to “enhanced streets,” incorporating protected bike lanes and wider sidewalks to promote multi-use paths and mobility. The code retained elements like low impact development strategies, environmentally friendly design practices, and health design solutions. A cap was set at three mitigations per project, based on the highest percentage deviation from the code. There was an emphasis on avoiding “double dipping,” where a mitigation could be used for both a requirement and a bonus. The council aimed to create a “cafeteria of options” for developers, facilitating code navigation while maintaining oversight.

Mobility strategies mandated by the comprehensive plan require developers to implement between one and six strategies based on projected trip generation. Options included bike repair stations and improved pedestrian crossings, with some strategies weighted more heavily. The conversation also covered contributions related to public parks, proposing a $10,000 rate for monetary contributions, stressing the need for these to align with appropriate mitigation strategies.

The council then debated reducing the width of local streets from 24 feet to create a safer environment for cyclists and pedestrians. Narrower lanes are viewed as traffic calming devices, aligning with trends in other cities. Proposals included requiring shared lane markings where speed limits are 25 mph or less, though concerns about safety and financial implications were raised. There was a consensus to remove such requirements in residential subdivisions, opting instead for signage near speed limit signs to alert drivers to the presence of cyclists.

The topic of sidewalk width was also contentious. A proposal to increase the minimum width from 5 feet to 6 feet aimed to accommodate various modes of transportation but faced opposition due to concerns about space limitations and aesthetics in residential neighborhoods. The council reached a consensus on the 6-foot width but hesitated on increasing the setback from the roadway to 7 feet.

Signage regulations were another point of discussion. Proposals included allowing gas stations to have a larger changeable area for displaying fuel prices, increasing from 20% to 40%. The council debated whether to provide exemptions or create different standards for gas stations, with a general lean towards uniformity in regulations across all businesses. The issue of abandoned signs was also addressed, with a call for clear definitions and consequences for property owners.

The meeting concluded with discussions on lighting requirements, fire hydrant spacing, and non-conforming situations. The council emphasized the need for consistent illumination and the city’s responsibility for maintaining public right-of-way lighting. There was a consensus to keep septic tanks out of conservation areas and to clarify language on utility line extensions to avoid illegal exactions.