3A Public Hearing 2007 0116 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Draft Minutes Excerpl- J 2/14/06 Planning Commission Meeting 5 Commissioner Collier wanted to know if a building pem1it is not required for a garden feature exceeding certain dimensions, how the City would find out about it in order to hold a required hearing. She noted that such additions frequently go up as quickly as over a weekend, particularly if the foundation or concrete is already in place. Secretary Pollart explained that was exactly the situation with the garden feature that triggered the proposed amendment. Aside from having the information in the Zoning Code, she said the requirement could also be on the City's website and be available in handouts so people could begin to learn that if they want to add a feature in the RS~VP District, they may need Planning review before it is constructed. She also acknowledged perhaps having to deal with some after- the-fact approvals, or denials. Commissioner Collier asked what would happen in the case of a denial, if it would go so far as to requiring dismantling of something that is non-conforming. Secretary Pollart said yes. Currently, a property owner who makes improvements without pertuit that arc out of compliance and cannot be made compliant, the owner must either remove the portion that is non-compliant or remove the entire structure. Vice-Chair Reed wondered what options are appealing a ZEa decision. Secretary Pollart pointed out that for processes that are handled administratively by staff, decisions may be taken to the ZEa for appeal. ZEa decisions may be appealed first to the BZA, and ifupheld by the BZA, go to the City Council. Vice-Chair Reed asked whether there is a charge for an appeal. Secretary Pollart said that the amount is specified on a fee schedule, and recalled it as being perhaps $160. Vice-Chair Reed wondered whether the process is described clearly enough. Secretary Pollart referred back to the table in Article 5, Section 2-584, which Plam1ers use to discuss proposals with applicants regarding the approvals required. She also noted that the current Zoning Code already stipulates how appeals are handled. Chair Perras followed up on Commissioner Collier's question, asking what happens if someone builds a nonconfonning structure without the requisite approvals. Secretary Pollart replied that the Zoning Code contains an enforcement article that provides for imposing a daily fine, and a lien could also be imposed. In the past, she added, enforcement hearings have been held, with three City staffrepresentatives sitting as the hearing board, levying fines if they consider the case that the Planning staff presents warrants such action. City Attorney Stuart agreed with Secretary Pollart's explanation. Chair Perras asked if there were any more questions. There being none, Secretary Poll art asked that separate votes be taken on each proposal. Motion to Forward Zoning Code Amendment to the City Council with a Recommendation for Approval for Article 5, new Section 2-537 Daylight Plane (Dlugosh I Collier; 7 Ayes, 0 Noes) Motion passed