At the May 10 meeting of the city's Planning and Economic Development 
Committee, CAN member Joe Minicozzi presented a two-page list of 
recommended changes in the city's enforcement, communications, process 
and training practices. The items ranged from specific requests that the city 
enforce the terms of Target's conditional-use permit and take action 
concerning Prudential Realty's illegal sign to general ideas for keeping 
residents apprised of development plans and decisions. Minicozzi also 
displayed an illustration showing how Staples could bring its signage into 
conformity with city regulations at a relatively reasonable cost.

All three committee members – Vice Mayor Holly Jones and Council 
members Jan Davis and Robin Cape – thanked Minicozzi for the list and 
voiced concern about the issues raised, but none suggested taking any specific 
steps to firm up enforcement of the rules. Davis, who chairs the committee, 
indicated that only the highest-priority matters were likely to be addressed, 
saying, "We recognize that staff has limited time and is overworked, and we 
aren't going to be adding any new positions anytime soon."

CAN has made repeated attempts to pressure city staffers to enforce the 
Unified Development Ordinance. Through petitions and conferences with 
staff and City Council members, as well as more formal legal actions, group 
members have challenged staff decisions on a series of projects that CAN 
alleges explicitly violate UDO rules. (See "Overseeing the Overseers," Feb. 
15 Xpress; "Board of Adjustment Rejects CAN Appeals," April 5 Xpress.)

The Planning and Economic Development Committee had previously heard 
from CAN members at its April 12 meeting but turned them away with the 
suggestion that the group discuss its concerns with staff. "That was exactly 
what we were there to discuss – the failure of staff to respond to our 
concerns," Minicozzi said later.

At the May meeting, Cape focused on some less-controversial suggestions, 
observing, "I think there are some very good ideas here about improving 
communication."

Jones, meanwhile, said she was willing to ask Staples for improvements, but 
she wouldn't tell them they had to make changes. Jones said she was 
overloaded and didn't want to hear anymore about what the rules are and what 
is or isn't legal according to the UDO.

"We did make a mistake on the Prudential sign and freely admit it," conceded 
Planning Director Scott Shuford. But even though the sign is noncompliant 
and must be either altered or removed to satisfy the law unless the Board of 
Adjustment granted a variance, Shuford told the committee that he'd decided 
not to enforce the UDO.

No one on the committee challenged Shuford about this. Asked about it later 
via e-mail, Davis said: "[Shuford's] response was that we [staff] had made an 
error, allowing one panel of the sign to be permitted illegally. I responded 
with a question, probably putting words in his mouth, asking if that 
grandfathered the sign until a change is made. My feeling of potential legal 
challenge by the owner was affirmed. I suppose the other side of that would 
be the CAN group challenging; tough on us taxpayers, either way."

Cape told Xpress, "I think it fair that we start to try and change a culture [in 
such a way that] the fear of reprisal for mistakes is removed."

City Council may consider CAN's recommendations during a May 30 meeting 
on potential changes to the UDO.

- Cecil Bothwell