Laserfiche WebLink
�: � <br /> FILE#07-3305 <br /> 10 October 2007 <br /> Page 2 of 2 <br /> Discussion <br /> While the recommendation of staff, for denial, has not changed the applicant was sent <br /> back to the "drawing board" after the first PC meeting in August to make changes the PC <br /> was directing. Procedurally speaking it would be correct to make the assumption since <br /> the applicant followed the direction given by the "majority" of the Commissioners at the <br /> August meeting as long as that direction was followed the PC would move it on to the <br /> Council with an approval recommendation. This did not happen. VJhile there is no legal <br /> obligation for the 2"d group of Commissioners to honor the direction given by the 1 St <br /> group of Commissioners, staff would encourage follow through for not only the sake of <br /> consistency but in order to give applicants a fair and predictable process. This particular <br /> process so far appears arbitrary. <br /> Staff would encourage the Commission to discuss this application in light of what has <br /> transpired procedurally and make a reasonable recommendation to the Council. <br /> Staff Recommendation <br /> Staff feels that the property is currently being put to a reasonable use and to further the <br /> nonconformities with the proposed structural additions is excessive. Staff continues to <br /> recommend denial. However, should Planning Commission find that the applicant's <br /> revised plans meet the direction provided at the August meeting then an approval <br /> recommendation could be forwarded to the City Council. <br /> 2 <br />