2003-0103 - Application for a Special Development Permit on a 4,283 square foot site to allow a second story addition to an existing two-story home for a total of 2,679 square feet resulting in a 62% FAR (Floor Area Ratio) where 45% FAR is allowed without Planning Commission review. The property is located at 536 Cashmere Court in an R-2/PD (Low-Medium Density Residential/Planned Development) Zoning District. (APN: 323-12-015) (Continued from 5/27/03, applicant requests further continuance)

Chair Simons announced that due to a request for a continuance by the applicant a staff report was not prepared for the application. He further announced to the members of the public that direction would be given on what to do if they could not attend the next public hearing.

Trudi Ryan, Planning Officer, reported that, previously, the Planning Commission considered the item and continued it for redesign. She stated that the item was re noticed. Ms. Ryan noted that the neighbors that did not participate in the initial application have become aware of the pending application and have expressed concerns. Ms. Ryan further reported that the applicant has not finalized the plan and therefore staff was not able to prepare a written report. She noted that if the applicant were to submit plan as early as tomorrow they could hold a public hearing on June 23^rd. She noted that it was her understanding that at least two or more members of the public would not be able to attend the June 23^rd meeting to express their concern on the application. She stated that in the past the commission has allowed the public to address the commission when they could not attend a future scheduled hearing.

Chair Simons commented that for those members of the public who might be speaking on the item may not be allowed to speak at the next meeting.

Comm. Moylan asked if it was not the commission's option to consider the application to a later date than June 23^rd considering that the item has been continued several times. He added that it would allow more time for the applicant to be ready. Ms. Ryan responded that it was an option but to note that the state has a permit streamlining requirement and only a certain amount of time can go by before action is taken on an application. Ms. Ryan noted that it was staff's understanding that some neighbors would not be available during the summer.

Comm. Moylan asked staff what the constraint was with regards to the streamlining and how much flexibility the commission would have if they chose a future date. Ms. Ryan responded that the state law on permit streamlining is 90 days from when an application has been deemed complete. She noted that even though the application was advertised and not complete originally it was complete but modified a number of times. She felt that another two months would be outside limits. Comm. Moylan verified with staff that the first meeting in August would be outside the limits and something earlier would be preferable. Staff agreed.

Comm. Satterlee commented that they should be a little more definite about their intentions before they ask people if they want to commit. She further commented that if they are not intending to have the item come back on June 23^rd to consider that the make up of the commission might change in the July or August time frame. She suggested that testimony in the form of writing from people who could not attend the public hearing might be better. She also commented that it would allow all the commission to have the same feedback as opposed to hearing something verbally verses reading it from the minutes.

Ms. Ryan noted that if there is a commissioner who misses a meeting or testimony an option for that commissioner would be to watch a video tape of the hearing.

Vice Chair Babcock asked Chair Simons if it would be appropriate to see a show of hands from the members of the public to see who came to speak on the item and how many would be able to return in two weeks verses four weeks.

Chair Simons asked for a show of hands from the members of the public to see who was present to speak on the item. He then asked who could not make a meeting in two weeks and then a show of hands from the people who could not attend a meeting in late July.

Comm. Swegles asked Chair Simons if it would be appropriate to set a motion in regards to the future date. Chair Simons referred the question to staff. Joan Borger, Senior Assistant City Attorney, responded that the commission needed to decide if they would entertain comments from the public and open the public hearing or continue it to July 28^th and not have public testimony.

Vice Chair Babcock commented that it seemed like the majority of the people in the audience could make it and are within the 90-day limit. She further commented that if there are any new commissioners they could get a copy of the minutes or have the meeting video provided to them.

Comm. Swegles concurred with Vice Chair Babcock and stated that it is important to have all the input from everyone.

Ms. Ryan commented that staff would speak to the members of the public that were unclear with the motion. She then noted that the item is not required to be re advertised and most likely staff would modify the posting notice in front of the property as a reminder to the neighborhood that there is a new meeting.

Return to Agenda, Reports & Minutes