11-17-2003 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

N0vtnibtr 14.2093 r^3 The applicants indicate the> have removed a total of447 s.f. ofconcrete to date, as well as the plastic landsc^ bed liners. This leaves them 234 s.f. short of the 681 s.f. removals required per the resolution. OpCiias far Action This appeal process is intended to allow for consideration of w hrther the administrative actions taken by Staff (i.e. the interpretation of wha: 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 sariety of outcomes on this, including one of the following: 1.Determine that the staffinterpretation as noted in Resolution No. 4920 correctly reflects the Planning Commission’s inter Determine that the staff interpreution does not correctly reflect the Planning Commission's intent, and provide suff with direction to clarify’ and correct the resolution. Reach no consensus as to w he Jter the interpretation is accurate, and send it along to Council with no recommendation. (Not a desired outcome, obviously). The applicants could, if they disagree w ith your conclusions, file for a new variance and attempt to demonstrate a hardship that would suppon the granting of variances. In staffs opinion, the appeal process is not intended to take the pli:e of a new variance application. Staff Rreommendation Plaruting Commission should review the av ailable documentation and attempt to reach a conclusion as to whether the Resolution and Exhibit accurately reflect the Planning Commission's intent at the February 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.