HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-03-10 BAA MINUTES•
•
•
MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS
~ .... :
March 10, 2004
I. CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the Englewood Board of Adjustment and Appeals was called to
order at 7:30 pm. in the Englewood City Council Chambers, Chair Carlston presiding.
Members present:
Members absent:
Staff present:
Baker, Bode, Carlston, O'Brien (entered at 7:4 0 p .m .), Shotwell, Smith,
Sprecace, Cohn (alternate)
None
Anthon y Fruchtl, Planner
Tricia Langon , Senior Planner
Harold Stitt, Senior Planner
Nancy Reid , Assistant City Attorney
Chair Carlston stated there were seven members present; therefore, five affirmative votes
are required to grant a variance or appeal. Chair Carlston stated that the Board of
Adjustment and Appeals is empowered to grant or deny variances by Part Ill , Section 60 of
the Englewood City Charter . Variances granted by the Board are subject to a 30-day
appeal period . Variances are effecti v e at the end of the appeal period. Building permits for
construction associated with an approved variance will not be issued until the appeal
period is ended . Building permits must be obtained and construction begun within 180
da y s of the variance's effective date .
Chair Carlston welcomed Ms. Shotwell to the Board and Mr. Cohn as an alternate member
to the Board.
II. ELECTIONS
Mr. Smith nominated Mr. Sprecace as Chair. Mr. Sprecace declined the nomination stating
he did not have enough experience. Mr. Sprecace nominated Mr. Smith as Chair. Mr.
Smith declined the nomination stating he alread y ser v ed as Chair.
Mr. Smith moved;
Mr. Bode seconded : TO ELECT JEFF BAKER AS CHAIR .
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Bode, Carlston , Shotwell, Smith , Sprecace
Baker
None
O'Brien
1
•
•
•
The Chair announced the motion approved by a 5-1 vote .
Mr. Smith~ moved;
Mr. Bode seconded: TO ELECT DAVID SPRECACE AS VICE CHAIR.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Baker, Bode, Carlston, Shotwell, Smith , Sprecace
None
None
O'Brien
The Chair announced the motion approved by a 6-0 vote.
Mr. Baker assumed the position of Chair. Mr. Baker stated there is a possible job position
which would require him to re locate. Ms . Reid stated the Board can address that issue if
and when it arises .
JJJ. CASE #2004-02
David S. Werber
2800 South Acoma Street
Mr. Smith stated he had a point of order. Staff's memorandum indicates the Board will hear
the case under the old statute. His understanding of the law is the applicant can decide
which Code most favors his request and the case be heard under that Code. Unless there
is something in the Ordinance, he doesn't understand why the new Code shouldn't apply
to this case. Ms. Langon responded; the new Ordinance was not in effect at the time of
the submittal. Mr. Smith countered that it is in effect at the time of the hearing. Ms. Reid
stated the Unified Development Code is in effect at the time of the hearing; however, prior
policy has been that the date of the application dictates which Code is used . As a practical
matter, there wasn 't a change in the Fence Ordinance which would favor the variance one
way or the other.
Chair Baker set forth parameters for the hearing: The case will be introduced; applicants
will present their request and reasons the variance should be granted; proponents will be
given an opportunity to speak; opponents will address the Board; and then staff will address
the Board.
Chair Baker declared the Public Hearing open, stating he had proof of posting and
publication. He introduced the case by stating it is a variance to exceed the maximum
allowed height of a solid fence within the front yard setback by 3 feet. This is a variance to
Section 16-4-1 7 Residential District Standards, Figure G-1 Corner Lot of the Englewood
Municipal Code.
David Werber, 2800 South Acoma Street, was sworn in. Mr. Werber stated there is a very
dilapidated fence in the backyard which existed when he purchased the house two years
ago , and he wishes 'to replace the fence. The property is a corner lot; the back of his house
is the side of another house. Along the side of his house, the fence currently runs along the
2
•
•
•
property line. He would like to set the new fence back an additional 12 feet so that it runs
along the side of the house. This would create a uniform side yard and preserve some of
the backyard which would be cut in half under current zoning regulations. Mr. Werber
stated his lot is smaller than the typical lot in the neighborhood, and to lose half of the
backyard would impair his family 's enjoyment of the home. He is requesting a six foot
fence because he owns two dogs, one of which is a Siberian Husky. A three or four foot
fence will not contain the dog.
Mr. Sprecace stated that according to the site plan, part of the fence is on the front side of
the house . Mr. Werber responded that none of the fence would be in the front yard; it
would be along the sides and rear of the property. The only part requiring the variance is
the section coming off the back corner of the house. Mr. Werber stated that part of the
issue with the property is the house faces Amherst as opposed to Acoma. The property is
addressed on Acoma, but the front of the house faces Amherst. Mr. Sprecace confirmed
there was an existing fence . Mr. Werber stated the existing fence is actually 12 feet closer
to the property line at the corner of the house . The new fence would be set back 12 feet
from where the current fence exists .
Ms. Carlston asked if he attempted to contact the neighbor at 26 West Amherst Avenue.
Mr. Werber stated the property is a rental , and he was unable to contact the owner. The
variance affects the opposite corner and will not be visible for that property .
Ms. Shotwell stated because the house faces Amherst Avenue, the setback for the rest of
the houses that face Amherst Avenue would be 25 feet. He is proposing to move the fence
forward 11 .5 feet. Mr. Werber responded that the side affected is the Acoma side of the
house, not the Amherst side . The setback for the fence on the Amherst side is compliant
with Code. Because of the wa y the Ordinance is set up Acoma is considered the front of
the property because that is how the property is addressed . Ms . Shotwell stated she
understood; it seems that in considering the spirit of the Ordinance the other houses that
face Acoma Street are required to set back 25 feet so even though he is requesting the
variance on the side perhaps he should not be permitted to move the fence on the Amherst
side forward 11 .5 feet. Mr. Werber stated that setting the fence back to meet the
regulations would cut his backyard in half. Ms. Shotwell stated she wasn 't referring to that
area; she is referring to the front of the house which faces Amherst. Mr. Werber stated
there is no variance needed for that area. The only area affected by the variance is on
Acoma.
Ms. O'Brien clarified that the applicant is seeking to move the fence on Acoma to be the
same distance from Acoma as the house itself. Mr. Werber stated that was correct. Ms.
O 'Brien further clarified that the fence will not be coming closer to Acoma than the
structure already exists . Mr. Werber stated that was correct.
Ms. Shotwell stated she understood; however she is inquiring whether it is worthy of
consideration that in allowing the variance the applicant should also be able to move the
fence on Amherst .11 .5 feet forward; something his neighbors on Amherst would not be
permitted to do.
3
•
•
•
Mr . Smith stated the applicant is not moving that portion of the fence 11.5 feet; that is the
distance from the garage to the new fence. Referring to the site plan, Mr. Smith stated the
"brown line" is moving 5.5 to 6 feet which is not inconsistent with his neighbors on
Amherst. Ms. Shotwell confirmed that the old fence was 25 feet from the street which
would be in compliance with the other houses that face Acoma. Mr. Smith stated the
"green line" indicates the fence at 26 West Amherst, which is the same distance from the
street as the applicant's proposed fence.
Mr. Werber stated that the "green line" represents his neighbor's 6 foot fence. He picked
that line so the fence would be consistent across the properties . He explained currently
there is his fence and then a 3 foot chain link fence going up to the neighbor's 6 foot fence,
and then it juts over which looks odd. It would be more uniform to have a 6 foot fence
across the two properties.
Ms. O'Brien confirmed that the only area covered by the variance request is the "squiggly
area" on the site plan and that nothing else is at issue. Mr. Werber stated that was his
understanding from his meetings with staff. Ms . Carlston stated that perhaps staff could
further clarify the issue .
Anthony Fruchtl, Planner was sworn in. Mr. Fruchtl confirmed that the only area specific to
the variance is the "squiggly line" on the site plan. The other area located along Amherst is
technically considered the applicant's side yard which permits a 6 foot fence .
Mr. Smith asked if a variance would be needed if the property were addressed on Amherst.
Mr. Fruchtl stated if the property were addressed on Amherst, the variance would be for
the north portion adjacent to the garage as well as the rear portion. Mr. Smith asked how
far back the fence would need to go if the property were addressed on Amherst. Mr.
Fruchtl responded it would need to be placed 25 feet back from the property line.
Ms. O'Brien clarified that with regard to the front, the applicant is proposing what is already
in existence on the neighbor's property.
Referring to the site plan, Mr. Sprecace confirmed that the "yellow line" represents the
proposed fence. Mr. Werber stated that was correct. Mr . Sprecace asked if the "brown
line" represented the existing fence. Mr . Werber stated that was correct; it represents the
existing 6 foot fence which extends almost to the property line. The proposed fence would
be moved back to create a consistent line with the house. Mr. Sprecace asked when the
existing fence was erected. Mr. Werber stated he didn't know; the boards are rotting and
are bowed so he would assume it has existed for quite some time.
Ms. Shotwell asked staff if the variance was consistent with the spirit of the Ordinance by
granting the variance for the "squiggly line" on the site plan as well as moving the front
fence closer to the street where the other houses on the street would be required to set
back the fence 25 feet. Mr. Fruchtl stated staff cannot render an opinion on the spirit of the
ordinance. Ms . Reid stated staff may give an opinion if requested by a Board member.
4
•
•
•
Ms. O'Brien stated the front literally meets the explicit requirements of the Ordinance. Mr .
Smith stated it is actually the side. Mr. Fruchtl stated the house and pqrch are oriented
towards Amherst; but by City policy whenever a property is addressed off·of a certain street
that becomes the technical front yard. The home must meet all the requirements of front
yard setbacks on the street it is addressed. This home is addressed on South Acoma Street;
therefore, since the applicant requested to construct a fence within the 25 feet, which is the
required front yard setback, the applicant must adhere to the required fence height which is
three feet for a solid fence and four feet for an open fence. Regardless of the orientation of
the home, it is specific to the addressing of the home. · ·
Mr. Fruchtl asked Ms. Shotwell if she was inquiring whether the fence location on Amherst
is in compliance with the homes along Amherst or Acoma. Mr. Fruchtl stated he could not
speak as to the height of the fences along Acoma; he has not been to the site for a few
weeks. Any fences within the front setback along Acoma would need to be either 3 feet
for solid or 4 feet for open. Additionally, a 6 foot fence has existed along Acoma Street for
a number of years. Removing that fence will bring the property into conformance with the
existing sight line on the block.
Mr. Sprecace confirmed that for the applicant to meet the fence regulations, he would
need to put the 6 foot fence on the "orange dotted line." Mr. Fruchtl stated that was
correct.
There were no other persons present to testify for or against the variance. Chair Baker
incorporated the staff report and exhibits into the record and closed the public hearing.
Mr. Bode moved;
Mr. Smith seconded :
THAT CASE #2004-02 , 2800 SOUTH ACOMA STREET, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE
TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED HEIGHT OF A SOLID FENCE WITHIN THE
FRONT YARD SETBACK BY 3 FEET. THIS IS A VARIANCE TO SECTION 16-4-17
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT STANDARDS, FIGURE G-1 CORNER LOT OF THE
ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE.
Mr. Smith stated the property is unique since the lot is small and has unusual dimensions.
The existing fence is very old and replacing it will improve the property. The proposed
fence will be consistent with the neighbor's fence on Amherst.
With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members' votes .
Mr. Smith stated he voted yes . There are exceptional circumstances due to a smaller lot
with somewhat odd dimensions, as well as the property being addressed on Acoma even
though the front of the house is on Amherst. It meets the spirit of the Ordinance because it
allows the owner an amenity consistent with the neighborhood . It further allows the
applicant to keep liis dogs in control. It will not adversely affect the adjacent properties
because it will enhance the neighborhood. It will not impair the use or development of the
5
•
•
•
adjacent properties because it is an older development which is already developed. It is
the minimum variance allowing use 9f the side yard and rear yard .
~
Ms . O 'Brien stated she voted yes concurring with Mr. Smith . She also found the applicant's
request to be logical since he is moving the side fence back to line up with the house .
Ms. Carlston stated she voted yes concurring with Mr. Smith. She further expressed her
appreciation to the applicant for submitting the site plan in a color format; it helped her
understand the request. · ·
Mr. Bode, Ms. Shotwell, Mr. Sprecace, and Chair Baker voted yes concurring with Mr.
Smith .
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Baker, Bode, Carlston, O 'Brien, Shotwell, Smith, Sprecace
None
None
None
The Chair announced the motion appro v ed by a 7-0 vote and instructed the applicant to
contact the Planning staff for an y additional or necessary information.
IV. APPROVAL OF TELEPHONE POLL
Chair Baker stated a telephone poll was conducted on February 12, 2004 to approve the
M i nutes of January 14, 2004 and the Findings of Fact in Case #2004-01. Chair Baker asked
for an approval of the telephone poll approving the Minutes and Findings of Fact.
Mr. Smith moved;
Mr. Bode seconded : TO APPRO V E THE TELEPHONE POLL CONDUCTED ON
FEBRUARY 12, 2004.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Baker, Bode, Carlston, O'Brien, Shotwell, Smith, Sprecace.
None
None
None
The motion carried . The Chair announced the motion approved by a 7-0 vote.
V. STAFF ADVISOR'S CHOICE
Mr. Fruchtl stated one case is scheduled for April. The property is located at 2998 West
Tanforan Drive and is a request for a 7 foot encroachment into the front setback to
construct a covered porch .
Ms. Langon congratulated Chair Baker on his first official meeting as Chair. Ms . Langon
stated a study session is scheduled after the regular meeting and asked if the Board wished
6
••
•
•
to stay in Chambers or move to a conference room on the third floor. The Board decided
to remain in Chambers. Ms . Langon announced that Mr . Fruchtl would be assuming the
Board's duties for Community Development.
VI. CITY A TIORNEY'S CHOICE
With regard to the article on Ex Parte communication, Ms. Reid stated City Council and
Planning Commission have been contacted by a number of citizens and neighbors
··surrounding the proposed development at the Denver Seminary on University and
Hampden. The article provides timely information for Council and Board members to not
discuss an issue outside a public hearing. Council and Board members should
communicate that comments should be made at a public hearing and it is not appropriate
for them to discuss the issue before that time.
Ms . Langon asked Ms. Reid to discuss how the article relates to cases heard by the Board.
Ms. Reid stated the Board typically visits the site prior to a hearing . Frequently, if the
homeowner is home, they want to present their arguments as to why their variance should
be granted and the neighbors want to argue why it shouldn 't be granted. Ms . Reid stated
on those occasions, the Board should communicate that the y are onl y looking at the
property in preparation of the public hearing and cannot discuss the case. Any input the
Board receives to reach its decision should be heard at the public hearing .
Mr. Sprecace asked if Englewood had Sunshine Laws . Ms. Reid stated it did. Mr . Smith
stated the new Ordinance points out that if a member visits the site and uses that
information to reach a decision , it must be disclosed to the entire Board at the public
hearing.
Ms. O'Brien stated she had an incident a few years ago where a Council person called and
wanted to talk about the case. In that instance, she conveyed that she couldn't talk about
the case and at the hearing prior to voting, she disclosed the conversation and that it would
not affect her vote.
VII. BOARD MEMBER'S CHOICE
Mr . Smith asked staff to inform the Board at the next meeting whether or not the scheduled
case would be affected differently by the old and new Ordinance; and if so what those
differences would be. Mr . Fruchtl stated there is no difference.
Mr. Sprecace announced he is running for House District 3.
Ms . Carlston thanked the City for allowing her to attend the ICBO conference. She
encouraged members to attend next year; it is a very good program .
Ms . O 'Brien apologized for arriving late; it was unavoidable . She welcomed Ms . Shotwell
to the Board. The Board goes out as a group after meetings, and Ms . Shotwell is invited to
join them . Ms . O 'Brien also welcomed Mr . Cohn as the alternate .
7
•
•
•
Chair Baker stated he attended the meeting Council held with Board members on February
9 and he is confused as to what took place . He stated he felt he was cornered by one of
the Council members. He stated he didn't understand what the Council member was upset
about and what was taking place with regards to the garage . He stated he would like to be
warned before going into another similar situation with Council.
Mr. Sprecace stated he was also in attendance, and it was clear that Council Member
Moore was upset that the Board granted the variance for the two-story garage. Ms.
O'Brien asked if either Mr. Baker or Mr. Sprecace were involved in that decision. Mr.
Sprecace stated he couldn 't vote on it for some reason , but he remembers the case.
Mr. Smith stated it is improper for Council Member Moore to second guess the Board's
decision and he is out of line . The Board makes decisions based on the facts presented
similar to judges . The Board does not answer to Council on how or why they voted; it is on
the record which speaks for itself. Mr. Smith stated he feels it is improper for Council to
confront a Board member on a decision he /she made . The y can criticize the Board as a
whole, but the y shouldn 't criticize an individual Board member.
Ms. O'Brien apologized to those present at the meeting; she had every intention of
attending but was stuck in court late and was unable to attend. Ms. O 'Brien continued; she
agrees with Mr. Smith . Because the Board is a quasi-judicial board, Council does not have
control over it. If the y did, it wouldn 't be a quasi-judicial board; the Board is to make
independent decisions. It was inappropriate and unfortunate that Council didn 't advise the
Board of specific decisions the y were concerned about and really wanted to enter into a
meaningful dialogue . It appears Council wanted to have a monologue, rather than a
dialogue, about their displeasure on a particular decision and that is unfortunate.
Mr. Sprecace stated it wasn 't the entire Council ; it was Council Member Moore. Mr.
Sprecace stated that he personally felt "blind sided ."
Mr. Smith stated members have to resist defending their decisions . The Board made the
decision, and members voted for the reasons stated on the record. Ms. O'Brien stated it is
also a good learning experience for new members . At each hearing, at least one Board
member goes through the criteria and explains why it was met in order to grant the request.
Mr. Smith reiterated that it is improper for anyone to confront an individual Board member
on a decision the entire Board made.
Ms. Shotwell stated she was also at the Council meeting, and it was intimidating. There
apparently was an issue over whether or not Board decisions were "rubber stamped." Ms.
Shotwell further stated that for the case heard this evening, she was unsure whether the
Board considered the whole property or specificall y just narrowly focused on the one piece
needing the variance. Ms. O 'Brien stated it is difficult because no one can talk about it
before the case is heard .
8
•
•
•
Ms. Reid stated she was also at the Council meeting; she stated the issue Council as a
whole was attempting to address was the elements of a variance . The initial purpose of _the
meeting was to discuss how the Board interprets the criteria . Regarding the staff report, 1he
Board has requested staff to list the variance and give pros and cons; staff does not provide
a recommendation to the Board. Ms. O'Brien stated there was a time when staff made a
recommendation, and the Board specifically asked them to no longer provide that
recommendation. Ms. Reid stated the Board 's decision at that time was they didn't want to
be perceived as a "rubber stamp" of staff's recommendation . If a member wants staff's
opinion, he/she may ask for it at the hearing and staff can provide it.
There was no further business brought before the Board. The regular meeting was declared
adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
VIII. STUDY SESSION
The study session convened at 8 :35 p.m. Mr. Stitt stated the legal basis for zoning is
generall y based on four cases which are set forth in the Board 's memo. The most
important of which is Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Company in 1926, decided by the
Supreme Court which upheld the constitutionality of zoning as a legitimate police power.
In this case , "police power" is the ability to enact and enforce laws in a community. Up
until that time, zoning was not established as a legitimate power of a municipality. At the
same time, comprehensive planning was taking form . There were communities in the
United States that began looking at ways to control land use through zoning regulations,
but also to plan ahead. The City of Cincinnati was the first municipality to adopt a
Comprehensive Plan .
Mr. Stitt continued; in an ideal world the Comprehensive Plan is developed first and the
zoning regulations follow. As pointed out in the memo, Englewood first adopted zoning in
1940 which was fairly early for communities to adopt zoning. It was not until 1969 that the
City had its first Comprehensive Plan. A Zoning Ordinance is an attempt to take a system
to create order out of chaos by imposing a set of standards. Unfortunately the community
is not consistent in terms of land use , which is why the Board of Adjustment exists. A
Zoning Ordinance cannot be drafted that adequately addresses every situation in the
community. Currentl y in Englewood there are several blocks in the southwest part of town
located in the R-1-A zone district which are nonconforming because they have only 50 feet
of frontage and have 6,250 square feet of lot area. The R-1-A zoning requires 9,000 square
feet of lot area and 75 feet of frontage . The Board comes into play when a property owner
wants to do something on the property that does not comply with the regulations such as
the lot is substantially smaller or not as wide as required .
The Board has a set of criteria to judge whether or not a variance should be granted. The
ability to draft a set of standards to review which gets to the essence of zoning is very
difficult. No matter how man y criteria exist, the object of a variance is to grant relief so a
property owner can enjoy the same property rights as other people who are not affected
by the same circumstances . In the event a lawsuit is brought against the Board, it is very
important to have Findings on the record to show how the Board reached its decision. The
9
1·".
•
•
•
criteria keep the Board narrowly focused on what is important in terms of granting a
variance. The criteria in the old Ordinance wa? basec;i on the 1955 Ordinance which
contained numerous variance criteria. In 1963, those criteria were amended, and in 1985
they were reduced from nine to five. The UDC also has a set of criteria. Mr. Smith stated
the new criteria appear broader. The Board is to keep in perspective what the zoning code
is attempting to accomplish which is to create order out of chaos and provide a level
playing field for all property owners . It is the role of the Board to make those
disadvantaged properties as nearly equal to the advantaged properties as much as possible . . .
Ms. O'Brien asked if the UDC included administrative variances. Ms. Langon responded ; it
includes administrative adjustments . Ms. O'Brien confirmed that it was up to a 10%
adjustment. Ms. Langon stated that was not correct. The adjustments are very limited;
there are only 5 areas that staff can review and there are also criteria. It is not by
percentage; it is specific to certain situations such as porches, extensions of existing
structures, and small percentage of setbacks . The administrative adjustments are very
minor; they will be reviewed under specific criteria similar to a standard variance request.
During the past three years, only two variances heard by the Board would have been
permitted under the administrati v e adjustment. Staff will keep the Board informed of an y
administrative adjustments it reviews and approves .
Ms. Langon stated there were no changes to the criteria for sign variances because there
were no substantive changes to the Sign Code. Depending on what happens with the Sign
Code, there may be changes to the criteria in the future . Regarding the general variance
criteria, Ms. Langon reviewed the changes to the general variance criteria . The first
criterion now allows the Board to consider pre-existing structures on the property as a
unique circumstance; previously it was just the physical condition of the land. The second
criterion is a restatement from the previous Code about whether it is consistent with the
intent. The third criterion is a combination of the third and fourth criterion from the old
Code. After researching other municipalities, the fourth criterion was developed which
does not allow for a self-imposed hardship. Ms . Langon stated that in her research there
were several communities that took this criterion one step further in that the variance
would not be granted if it were self-imposed by the owner or a previous owner. She felt
that was too much .
Mr. Smith noted that the UDC no longer permits the Board to hear use variances. Ms.
Langon stated that was true; there were 10 criterion for use variances and the sixth criterion
was the property could not be used for an y permitted use within the district. That criterion
negated any use variances . Mr. Smith stated the Board did hear several use variances, and
asked what the procedure would be for those applicants. Ms. Langon stated that
procedure has been removed . Applications will also not be accepted for additional units
on properties that do not meet the required minimums for lot area and lot frontage . Mr.
Bode confirmed the Board would still hear appeals . Ms. Langon stated that was correct.
Mr. Bode asked for clarification of "facilitate the provisions of wireless communication
services to the residents of the City " which is contained in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr.
Stitt responded; the City has the power to enter into franchise agreements which provide
10
•
•
•
wireless communication technologies. The Comprehensive Plan as a land use document
should addre~s the provision of communication tools and as a basis for zoning, the Zoning
Ordinance sh~uld allow for the increase of telecommunication technologies for the City.
Mr. Bode stated the use of the word "facilitate" usually means his taxes are increasing. Mr.
Smith stated this goes back to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 when the federal
government told cities to stop zoning the towers and facilities out of existence. Mr. Stitt
stated cities do have the ability to regulate, but not prohibit telecommunication technology.
-.
Mr. Stitt explained that the Comprehensive Plan is a policy document; it is not law . It does
not carry the same weight as the Zoning Ordinance. The Comprehensive Plan is the
intentions or the goals of the City. The Plan provides the policy basis for which Ordinances
can be adopted. Mr. Bode stated he didn't realize that; he thought the Plan carried the
same weight as the Zoning Ordinance.
Ms . Langon stated she would review the new format and layout of the UDC at the next
meeting. Mr. Smith stated he had an old Board handbook and asked if the new members
had received it. Ms. Langon stated it is outdated, but the new members did receive a copy.
It will need to be updated with the new references to the UDC.
11