Planning Commission Minutes 2005 08 11

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes AUGUST 11, 2005 Page 5 of 15 That is, if the Commission supports a change of use from retail to auto  service and makes a recommendation of approval for Case # 05-013 FP/UR the Commission could require the applicant to submit a compliance plan, a compliance schedule, and a guarantee of performance as part of the authorizing resolution. The proposed action and the recall action would be consolidated together  in that manner, if the Commission were to recommend approval of the pending case before the Commission. If it is the determination of the Commission to disapprove the pending Case # 05-  013-FP/UR, then it is the recommendation of the City Attorney to separate the two cases. That is, to separate Case #05-013 FP/UR from Case # 05-019 RC. A  Commission recommendation of disapproval for 05-013-FP/UR should be established on the SRU criteria and not on the issue of noncompliance of the 1990 PUD and SRU. The Commission is encouraged to separate the two cases and create a  separate record for the recall case, #05-019 RC. The Commission may recommend the continuance of the recall case and  forward a recommendation of disapproval to the City Council for the pending case #05-013 FP/UR. The pending case may proceed to City Council prior to the recall case.  Commission Questions: Lipton requested a clarification of what the Planning Commission action can be, based on the findings of the hearing, from Tiffanie Bleau, representing the City Attorney’s Office. Bleau summarized the options available to the Planning Commission that Wood had presented. Deborski asked what the standard protocol is for a code violation. Wood stated that the Police Department could issue warnings of zoning violations to the property/business owners. Applicant Presentation: Gordon Fordyce, 1655 Cannon Circle, requested a copy of the staff report. Copy distributed by staff. He then requested to distribute a copy of the ‘lift unit’ that will be used on the site. Lipton asked Fordyce to wait with the lift unit information as it would be information for the amended PUD and SRU that the Commission would hear following the hearing on the recall. He also asked the applicant if he wanted to continue with the hearing since he had not received a copy of the staff report prior to the meeting. Fordyce briefly discussed with his representative and stated that he would continue with the hearing. Fordyce then stated that the ‘lift unit’ is important to the recall because it will demonstrate how the parking requirement has been addressed.