01-09-2017 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Printup asked when this matter would come back to the City Council if the Planning Commission were to hear this application. Curtis indicated it would be February. Printup stated he is concerned about removing the review by the Planning Commission but that it does appear to be a fairly straight forward application. McMillan commented it is difficult this time of year since there is no December Planning Commission meeting. Curtis noted Staff felt the variances being requested were not controversial but that a public hearing is required regardless. Hans Bergh, Applicant, stated one of the reasons they are here is because they learned about the extra variance just recently. Bergh indicated they have sold their current house and that their builder is ready to go on the new house. Bergh stated Staff suggested that this might be a way to keep the project on schedule. Barnhart stated Staff has worked with the applicant over the course of the past several months and the applicant has taken great pains to reduce the number of variances. Barnhart stated the grading variance was necessary and the change in height is relatively minor. Barnhart stated ideally the application would go through the Planning Commission process but that it would impact the timing of the project, which is why Staff is supporting the variance requests. Printup stated the application looks fine but that he does not want to give the impression that the Council is not following the normal procedure. Bergh stated they started the plan and then sold their house. Bergh indicated they did make modifications to move the structure further away from the setbacks and attempted to work with Staff as best as they could to achieve a plan that was as compliant as possible. Berge stated this is an unusual situation and unusual circumstances and that they would like to get going on the building. Walsh stated he has the same concerns as Council Member Printup since the City has a normal process that it follows and that it would only delay it 30 days from January 9. Walsh commented he knows that everybody would like to expedite the process if they could but that the Planning Commission serves a valuable function regardless if it appears to be a straight forward application. Barnhart stated the clause in the code is intended to address situations when there is a lag in meetings and that there would still be an opportunity for the public to comment on the application. McMillan asked if it would be reposted for January 9. Curtis indicated it would be. Curtis stated the additional posting would be for people who are out of town given the holidays. Walsh asked if the Council does open the public hearing, whether they would be making any resolutions tonight. Curtis indicated the Council would direct Staff to draft a resolution and then reopen the public hearing on January 9th. Walsh commented he is cognizant of the fact that there is only one meeting this month.