pm_070208 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

numbering of the four (4) examples and each of their definitions to avoid ? confusion; and revising all signage to thirty-two (32) square feet for consistency; the need for more flexibility on materials for signage (i.e., durable, all-weather ? materials including but not limited to plywood); review City Code language on Section 6.3 of the staff report (Chapter 1010.03D ? – Master Sign Plan Approval Process) for language consistency and potential change of the first sentence from, “Should the applicant “of” or “or” a contiguous property owner object…”; four (4) separate areas defined; ? more consideration to business/industrial signage; and ? signage duration language. ? Chair Bakeman closed the Public Hearing, with no one appearing to speak. Ayes: 6 Nays: 0 Motion carried. d. PROJECT FILE 0015 Consideration 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 minor deviations from Code Requirements Chair Bakeman opened the Public Hearing for Project File 0015. Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd provided an overview for the review of text amendments to the zoning ordinance proposed by staff, resolving outstanding issues with existing setback permit ordinance and to broaden the process to include other land use issues; specific to minor excesses in impervious coverage and minor setback encroachments that didn’t represent a true hardship to the property owner. Mr. Lloyd advised that, since the Setback Permit process was adopted in 1999, at least 175 such minor deviations have reviewed administratively. Commissioner Doherty expressed concern with staff’s interpretation of Variance Board comments at their June 4, 2008 meeting, as detailed in Section 4.5 of the staff report; and read the minutes of the meeting that provided comments for the Variance Board seeking a more transparent process similar to that currently used. Mr. Lloyd apologized for his interpretation of the Variance Board’s comments and understanding. Variance Board Chair and Commissioner Boerigter provided his perception of Variance Board meeting comments, and the proposed administrative process versus current procedure before the Variance Board. Discussion among all commissioners and staff included the number of specific setback permit and impervious surface requests over the last few years and whether there was an actual revision in the process deemed necessary; staff challenges in not being able to find hardship for property owners wishing to make minor improvements to their property outside the variance process criteria; aging community parcels and housing stock; whether the process should follow deviations from the impervious surface limits; and thresholds for determining impacts to neighbors of subject properties. Considerable discussion was held regarding the need to maintain a public approval process and time and cost implications for those minor deviations when a property owner could mitigate site issues to achieve the 30% impervious coverage ratio by working with staff for minor deviations without the full public process, when variance criteria could not be met. Staff reviewed various and repeated cases where property owners sought to make minor improvements, but due to the inability to meet hardship criteria, could not proceed with their improvements; and staff’s intent to be more proactive and reduce processes for Page 8 of 9