2011-05-04_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, May 04, 2011 Page 8 Mr. Paschke asked that individual commissioners e-mail staff with any additional 363 comments or concerns as staff proceeded to draft the documents for a future public 364 hearing before the Planning Commission to allow staff to research all issues before that 365 time. 366 Chair Boerigter asked that staff provide feedback from business owners and those 367 submitting Master Sign Plans and whether proposed revisions were onerous for them; or 368 as Mr. Paschke noted staff’s most often-heard complaint was the amount of turnaround 369 time for sign permits, questioned if the information being requested and causing the delay 370 was onerous for them to provide. Chair Boerigter asked staff to review the process to 371 determine if there were any other improvements that could be made to benefit staff while 372 addressing delays for business owners. 373 Mr. Paschke noted that the Master Sign Plan process allowed those property owners 374 much more flexibility than single tenants; and advised that most owners of multiple-tenant 375 properties hired a sign contractor to prepare their plan, with the contractor educating the 376 property owner on the requirements and working with staff on the permit process. 377 However, for single tenant property owners, they didn’t have that advantage. Mr. 378 Paschke noted that the Master Sign Plan process itself provided a more thorough thought 379 process for multi-tenant property owners. Mr. Paschke noted that the turnaround time for 380 a Master Sign Plan could be less than two (2) hours for a small operation, as long as the 381 Plan and related documents were submitted to the office and met requirements for review 382 within the City’s sign code parameters. 383 Member Boguszewski expressed his concerns in the language that any application not 384 approved or denied within ten (10) days was deemed denied, whether it was due to the 385 applicant or city staff turnaround time failure; and opined that it didn’t seem to be a good 386 scenario. Member Boguszewski expressed further concern that the proposed code did 387 not just include things that may prove create in five (5) years, but were not practical at 388 this time, and were contained in a blanket clause. 389 6. Business 390 a. Discuss Topics for Inclusion on Agenda for May 9, 2011 Joint Planning 391 Commission/City Council Meeting 392 Mr. Paschke provided potential meeting topics, based on the City Council’s Work Plan 393 zoning discussion and related meeting minutes included in tonight’s agenda materials, 394 from discussions held with Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon and the 395 City Council. Mr. Paschke noted that the Sienna Green tour was still pending, but 396 anticipated to be at 5:00 p.m., with staff confirming the time for commissioners via e-mail 397 in the near future. 398 Discussion included those topics to highlight for discussion; areas needing further 399 clarification or direction to the Planning Commission from the City Council; better 400 definition of “aggressive land use” as it relates to public information policies and parallel 401 review by the Civic Engagement Task Force in a parallel process; energy efficiencies and 402 potential incentives and the intent and type of incentives to achieve sustainability and 403 benefits to the overall community; clarifying the City Council’s vision for Twin Lakes; and 404 how the Planning Commission’s deliberations can assist the City Council, given the 405 number of new Commissioners. 406 Further discussion ensued on the role of the Planning Commission in making 407 recommendation to the City Council, as per their directives and policies; and areas the 408 Commission should address related to zoning that they may be aware of before the City 409 Council, and clarifying their interest in such endeavors. 410 7. Adjourn 411 Chair Boerigter adjourned the meeting at approximately 8:45 p.m. 412