My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
3A Public Hearing 2007 0116
CityHall
>
City Clerk
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2007
>
Packet 2007 0116
>
3A Public Hearing 2007 0116
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/4/2007 12:46:30 PM
Creation date
1/18/2007 11:16:26 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CM City Clerk-City Council
CM City Clerk-City Council - Document Type
Staff Report
Document Date (6)
1/16/2007
Retention
PERM
Document Relationships
_CC Agenda 2007 0116
(Reference)
Path:
\City Clerk\City Council\Agenda Packets\2007\Packet 2007 0116
8C Consent 2007 0205
(Reference)
Path:
\City Clerk\City Council\Agenda Packets\2007\Packet 2007 0205
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
43
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />Draft Minutes Excerpl- J 2/14/06 Planning Commission Meeting <br /> <br />5 <br /> <br />Commissioner Collier wanted to know if a building pem1it is not required for a garden feature <br />exceeding certain dimensions, how the City would find out about it in order to hold a required <br />hearing. She noted that such additions frequently go up as quickly as over a weekend, <br />particularly if the foundation or concrete is already in place. <br /> <br />Secretary Pollart explained that was exactly the situation with the garden feature that triggered <br />the proposed amendment. Aside from having the information in the Zoning Code, she said the <br />requirement could also be on the City's website and be available in handouts so people could <br />begin to learn that if they want to add a feature in the RS~VP District, they may need Planning <br />review before it is constructed. She also acknowledged perhaps having to deal with some after- <br />the-fact approvals, or denials. <br /> <br />Commissioner Collier asked what would happen in the case of a denial, if it would go so far as <br />to requiring dismantling of something that is non-conforming. <br /> <br />Secretary Pollart said yes. Currently, a property owner who makes improvements without <br />pertuit that arc out of compliance and cannot be made compliant, the owner must either remove <br />the portion that is non-compliant or remove the entire structure. <br /> <br />Vice-Chair Reed wondered what options are appealing a ZEa decision. <br /> <br />Secretary Pollart pointed out that for processes that are handled administratively by staff, <br />decisions may be taken to the ZEa for appeal. ZEa decisions may be appealed first to the BZA, <br />and ifupheld by the BZA, go to the City Council. <br /> <br />Vice-Chair Reed asked whether there is a charge for an appeal. <br /> <br />Secretary Pollart said that the amount is specified on a fee schedule, and recalled it as being <br />perhaps $160. <br /> <br />Vice-Chair Reed wondered whether the process is described clearly enough. <br /> <br />Secretary Pollart referred back to the table in Article 5, Section 2-584, which Plam1ers use to <br />discuss proposals with applicants regarding the approvals required. She also noted that the <br />current Zoning Code already stipulates how appeals are handled. <br /> <br />Chair Perras followed up on Commissioner Collier's question, asking what happens if someone <br />builds a nonconfonning structure without the requisite approvals. <br /> <br />Secretary Pollart replied that the Zoning Code contains an enforcement article that provides for <br />imposing a daily fine, and a lien could also be imposed. In the past, she added, enforcement <br />hearings have been held, with three City staffrepresentatives sitting as the hearing board, levying <br />fines if they consider the case that the Planning staff presents warrants such action. <br /> <br />City Attorney Stuart agreed with Secretary Pollart's explanation. <br /> <br />Chair Perras asked if there were any more questions. There being none, Secretary Poll art <br />asked that separate votes be taken on each proposal. <br /> <br />Motion to Forward Zoning Code Amendment to the City Council with a <br />Recommendation for Approval for <br />Article 5, new Section 2-537 Daylight Plane <br />(Dlugosh I Collier; 7 Ayes, 0 Noes) <br />Motion passed <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.