My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 1999 03 16
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
1970-1999 City Council Minutes
>
1999 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 1999 03 16
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:36:44 PM
Creation date
2/3/2004 10:28:48 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
3/16/1999
Original Hardcopy Storage
2E4
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 1999 03 16
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
37
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
matters that were submitted to the Planning Commission are not the same matters that <br />have been submitted to Council. In fact, there have been significant revisions from what <br />the Planning Commission saw as opposed to what Council has seen. He felt that the Code <br />provides for appeals to be made from the Planning Commission based upon what the <br />Planning Commission saw, not what has been revised. Otherwise, Council becomes the <br />Planning Commission. He believes that if Council allows this to happen they might as <br />well dispatch the Planning Commission and make them nonexistent as everyone will just <br />appeal their decisions and bring the documents to Council. <br /> <br />Davidson requested that Sam Light, City Attorney, review the documents and notify the <br />applicant of the conditions. <br /> <br />Keany arrived (7:05 p.m.). <br /> <br />Jon Lee, the applicant requesting an appeal, questioned why it wouldn't be the same. He <br />explained that he presented the same information to Planning Commission & Council, <br />however, there was additional information offered to Council to help his case along. <br /> <br />Sam Light, City Attorney, replied that that is not the purpose of an appeal. He explained <br />that an appeal is for the City Council to visit the decision in the record established at the <br />Planning Commission level. If you are looking for discussion and direction on a different <br />type of submittal, that's also built into the process. After submittal of a preliminary plan, <br />there is a procedure that allows you to obtain City Council discussion and direction on a <br />new application. An appeal has to be based on the record that was established in the <br />lower tribunal. <br /> <br />Lee questioned whether any other discussion could happen. <br /> <br />Light replied, no, not on a new application or new elements of the plan. <br /> <br />Davidson questioned whether, in the appeal, Council would be allowed to make changes. <br /> <br />Light replied they could make modifications to the documents that were submitted to the <br />Planning Commission. However, their findings need to be based on the record and the <br />discussion that the Planning Commission had. They review that record and the <br />documents that the Planning Commission looked at. If the Planning Commission did not <br />look at specific modifications or proposals, you get into a point where, perhaps, it's more <br />proper to have it in a new application, versus as part of an appeal document. <br /> <br />Davidson requested that Light review the procedures with the applicant. <br /> <br />Light agreed. <br /> <br />Lee stated that every time he comes before Council there appears to be a different legal <br />program. He explained that Paul Wood, in the hearing, indicated that they could appeal it <br />and also said that it couldn't be appealed. He expressed his confusion and questioned <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.