2008_0728_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Draft Planning Commission Minutes Attachment A PROJECT FILE 001�5 Considerati ©n of a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment of Sections 1014, (Variances) and 1015 (Administration) of the City Code to clarify and expand the process of administratively approving min ©r deviations from Code Requirements Chant Bake ian ope'ne'd the Puck l�iic Hearing for Project File 0015. .1 6 Associate P'lanne'r Bryan Lloyd proviide'd an ove'rviie'w for the re'viie'w of text am�e'n�dm�e'n�ts to the zone i�n�g 7' ordinance propose�d by staff, re'sol�viin outstanding iissuie's with e'xiistiin se'tback pe'rmmiit ordinance and to .1 8 broaden the process t® include oth�e'r land use iissuie's; specific t® mmiin®r exce'sse's iinl impervious coverage 9 and mmiin�or se'tback e'mcroach�mme'mts tl�at diidm"t re'pre'se'mt a true I�ardsl�iip t® the prope'rty owme'r. 10 Mr. Lloyd adviise'd that, since the Setback Pe'rm�iit proce'ss was adopted iin 1999, at l�e'ast 175 such m�iinor 11 de'viiatiion s have re'viie'we'd administratively. 12, Commissioner Doh�e'rty e'xpre'sse'd concem with staff ; s iin�te'rpre'tatiion of Variance Board com�m�e'n�ts at th�e'iir 13 June 4, 2008 mme'e'tiinlg, as de'taine'd iinl Sc'ctii®n 4.5 ®f the staff report; and read the mmiin�uite's ®f the mme'e'tiin�g 14 thl at proviide'd commmme'n�ts for the Variance Board se'e'kiinlg a more transparent process siimmiil�ar t® thl at 15 cuirre'n�tl r uise'd. 16 Mr. Lloyd apol�ogiize'd for h�iis iin�te'rpre'tatiion of the Variance Board 11 s com�m�e'n�ts and uin�de'rstan�diing. 1 7' Variance Board Ch�aiir and Commissioner Boe'riigte'r proviide'd h�iis pe'rce'ptiion� of Variance Board m�e'e'tiing 18 com�m�e'nts, and the proposed administrative proce'ss ve'rsu�s cuirre'n�t procedure before the Variance 19 Board. 2,0 Diiscuissiion among all commm iissiion nets and staff iin�cl�uide'd the n�uimmbe'r of specific setback pe'rmmiit and 2,1 iimmpe'rviiou�s surface re'q�uie'sts over the last fe'w years and whe'the'r there was an actual re'viisiion iin the 2,2, process de'e'mme'd n�e�ce'ssary; staff ch�al�l�e'n e's iinl n ®t be'iin able t® fiin�d h�ardsh�iip for prope'rty owners .1 2,3 wiish�iimg t® make mmiin�or iimmprove'mme'mts t® th�e'iir prope'rty outside the variance process criite'riia; agiimg .1 24 commmmuinIiity parcels and h�ouisiinIg stock; whe'the'r the process sh�ouil�d fol�l�ow de'viiatiion�s from the iimmpe'rviiouis 2,5 surface l�iimmiits; and th�re'sh�ol�ds for de'te'rmmiinIiinIg impacts t® n�e'iigh ors ®f suibje'ct prope'rtiie's. 2,6 Considerable diiscuissiion was h�e'l�d re'gardiin�g the ne'e'd t® mmaiin�taiin a puibl�iic approval process and time and 2,"'7' cost implications for those mmiinlor de'viiatiion�s when a property own�e'r couil�d mitigate site iissuie's t® ach�iie've FF iaroTarl"ltrToTWoRgMiroTiT-KiMi7WMiT;NM�l�"o 1 "40, 2,9 process, when variance criite'riia couil�d not be m�e't. 30 Staff re'viie'we'd variiou�s and re'pe'ate'd case's where prope'rty own�e'rs sou�gh�t to make m�iin�or ii m�prove'm�e'n�ts, 31 buit due t® the iin�abiil iity t® mme'e't h�ardsh�iip criite'riia, couil�d n ®t proce'e'd with th�e�iir improvements; and staff's 32, iin�te'n�t to be more proactive and reduce proce'sse's for prope'rty own�e'rs to go throuigh�, while su�pportiing 33 th�e'iir logical and viable ii m�prove'm�e'n�ts l�e'gal�l r outside the variance criite'riia proce'ss. 34 Fuirth�e'r diiscuissiion iin�cl�uide'd property ae'sth�e�tiics; iinite'nIt ®f state law re'gardiin�g h�ardsh�iip criite'riia iinl gran�tiin�g .1 .1 35 variances; commmmiissiion� supp ort for se'tback de'viiatiion�s, hurt not iimmpe'rviiouis iissuie's; more mman�date's from 36 wate'rshe'd districts and water q�u al iity re'q�uiiire'mme'nIts; and whe'the'r th�e'y were uisucal�l r prese'nte'd iinl 3 7' CCU m' iI ilia tiloAli of as stanid alone iIssu es. 38 Commissioner Boe'riigte'r, now that he more fuil�l r uin�de'rstood staff 11 s iIn�te'n�t, offered h�iis su�pport of the 39 proposal for administrative re�vile�w of m' i1 de�vilatilon�s from Cilty Code re�q�u�i�re'm�e�n ts, opining thl at bask+ d on 40 wate'r q�uial�iity con�ce'rn�s, such any approval proce'ss for m�iin�or improvement proje'cts made se'n�se'. 41 Commissioner Doh�e'rty e'xpre'sse'd disappointment that the Variance Board se'rve'd as any ii m�pe'diim�e'n�t, .1 42, base'd on state law h�ardsh�iip criite'riia; and opiin�e'd h�iis lade of suipport for m�oviin�g away from a more puibl�iic, 43 transparent puck l�iic h�e'ariin�g and approval process. Commissioner Boe�riigte'r clarified thl at the h�ardsh�iip 44, re'q�uiiire'mme'n�t of the state statue was the iimmpe'diimme'nIt, n ®t the Variance Board. 45 Variiouis optiion�s were diiscuisse'd re'gardiin�g th�iis re'q�uie'ste'd text amme'n�dmme'n�t and options. 46 Commissioners Wozniitak and Martitnson offe're'd thee�itr general su�pport of the text am" �e'n�dm�e'nits, with some 4`7 re'se'rvatiions as pre'viiou�sl r diiscuisse'd re'gardiinag the transparency of the puibl�iIc proce'ss. 48 Commissioner Best opiin�e'd h�iis suipport of the concept and the expertise of staff iinl determining criite'riia; 49 and suipporte'd mmakiin�g iit e'asne'r for prope'rty own�e'rs to make iimmprove'mme'n�ts to their prope'rty, and for 50 overall iimmprove'mme'mt iim water q�uial�iity. Page I of 2