PC 022702 - Laserfiche WebLink

. the site be hydro seeded or other options considered to address visual aspects of the vacant site; if there are new City programs reflected as policy, but not yet codified through ordinances, and which would not effect any major modification to the project, these should be considered for these buildings and presented to the Planning Commission for review at the appropriate time prior to the issuance ofthe building permits; and staff would keep the developer apprised of any new policies. Commissioner Arkin seconded the motion. r . . ROLL CALL VOTE AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Commissioners Arkin, Kameny, Maas, Roberts, and Sullivan None None None The motion carried. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS REOPENED Mr. Rosenbaum commented on what he thinks Marion Pavan's intention was concerning the suggestion in the staff report that when the project is submitted for plan check, the Planning Department would determine if there were any policies that were not yet codified that would r- now apply to the structures. He stated that he feels that staffs' recommendation would be that when any given plan check occurs a determination would be made at the Planning staff level as to whether any policies not yet codified would now apply and the applicant would be advised of those policies, and the ultimate decision as to whether the applicant would need to comply would be that of the Planning Commission. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Discussion ensued regarding the implementation and intent of the motion, the issues related to the timing of the plan check and review, and potential redesign. Commissioner Roberts suggested that it might be better to have the Planning Commission apprised of the annual plan checks and if there is a problem with policy at that time that it come back to the Commission. Ms. Kline suggested that when the applicant submits for the annual plan check, staff would examine all policies and programs of the previous year and determine if any of these could be implemented in the project without having any major modification to the project and then an informational memo could be forwarded to the Planning Commission advising the Commission of the new policies, those that the developer agrees to incorporate, and those that have not been agreed to, and if there was no call by the Commission for review, the plan check could proceed. Commissioner Roberts moved to reconsider the Planning Commission's action. Commissioner Arkin seconded the motion. "..- February 27, 2002 Page 15 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES