080206_VB_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Variance Board Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, August 02, 2006 Page 3 a distance of ten feet (10’) from the County Road D property line and eight feet (8’) from the Cleveland Avenue property lien. Staff recommended approval of the request, based on comments and findings outlined in Section 5 of the staff report dated August 2, 2006, by resolution, to allow the construction of the proposed pylon signs in non-conforming locations, subject to the following conditions: a. The sign at the Cleveland Avenue location must not be closer to any right-of- way than the existing sign; b. The variance for each site (if granted) shall expire within six (6) months of their approval f a sign permit is not issued for the respective site pursuant to City Code, Section 1013.03. No one appeared for or against the project at the hearing. Chair Bakeman closed the Public Hearing. MOTION [7.1]: Member Doherty moved, seconded by Member Boerigter, to adopt Variance Board Resolution No. 41, APPROVING A VARIANCE to Section 1012.03 (General Requirements) to allow a pylon sign within the “visibility triangle” and a VARIANCE to Section 1005.01 (Business Districts) to allow the construction of a pylon sign at 3110 Cleveland Avenue in a location twenty-two feet (22’) closer to the Cleveland Avenue property line and twenty feet (20’) closer to the County Road D property line than Code permits, based on the comments and findings of Section 5 and the conditions of Section 6 of the project report dated August 2, 2006. Ayes: 3 Nays: 0 Motion carried. Variance Board Commissioner Comments Chair Bakeman thanked Acting Chair Boerigter for chairing the July meeting in her absence. Storm Water Infiltration Discussion Commissioner Boerigter noted the difficulty experienced by Commissioners at the June meeting in addressing staff-recommended, but non-specific infiltration designs on individual single-family properties on a case by case basis, rather than having staff provide standard policy recommendations; or by having the City Code amended to address those recommendations with the applicants prior to the Variance Board meeting. Commissioner Doherty concurred, noting that the process didn’t provide for good public policy to make decisions on a case by case basis at the bench. City Planner Paschke advised that staff was aware of Commissioner concerns; and anticipated that the Engineering Department would be preparing a toolbox of items for property owners to utilize to mitigate storm water runoff on their private property to reduce impacts to adjoining properties, and address impervious surface coverage, runoff rates, and impacts. Mr. Paschke further noted that he anticipated the need for an amendment to City Code, probably under design standards, given ongoing impacts to the City’s storm water and newly-adopted standards of area Watershed Districts. Mr. Paschke advised that the two (2) cases considered by the Variance Board in June were unique as they were in areas where drainage issues were already problematic; and improvements on the private property provided an opportunity to address drainage issues on site to attempt to reduce or rectify drainage issues for the entire area. Mr. Paschke requested that the Variance board provide staff the conditional flexibility to work with property owners to find viable solutions at a