11-24-2003 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

M3-2866a November 14,2003 Pages The applicants indicate they have removed a total of447 s.f. of concrete to date, as wel I as the plastic landscape bed liners. This leaves them 234 s.f. short of the 681 s.f. removals required per the resolution. Options for Action This appeal process is intended to allow for consideration of whether the administrative actions taken by StafT(i.e. the interpretation of what hardcover was required to be removed) reflects the intent of the Planning Commission and Council. Since this was on the Council's consent agenda, the primary review focus will be at the Planning Commission level. This is a public hearing process as defined in the zoning code. Planning Commission could reach a variety of outcomes on this, including one of the following; 1.Determine that the staff interpretation as noted in Resolution No. 4920 correctly reflects the Planning Commission’s intent. 2.Determine that the staff interpretation does not correctly reflect the Planning Commission’s intent, and provide staff with direction to clarify and correct the resolution. 3.Reach no consensus as to whether the interpretation is accurate, and send it along to Council with no recommendation. (Not a desired outcome, obviously). The applicants could, if they disagree with your conclusions, file for a new variance and attempt to demonstrate a hardship that would support the granting of variances. In staffs opinion, the appeal process is not intended to take the place of a new variance application. StofT Reconunendation Planning Commission should review the available documentation and attempt to reach a conclusion as to w hether the Resolution and E.\hibit accurately reflect the Planning Commission’s intent at the Februaiy 19, 2003 meeting. If not, provide detailed direction to the applicant and staff as to the correct intent. Your conclusion will be brought forward to the City Council at their next meeting. r