PC 091411 - Laserfiche WebLink

the public that the City wants to consider a change to the Specific Plan in this area so they could get an opportunity to weigh in on the amendment. Ms. Harryman noted that what Commissioner Blank was describing sounds like a variance, which cannot be done to the Specific Plan. Mr. Dolan stated that he believes the Specific Plan can be changed to apply just to one property, although it would be very odd. He indicated that the Planning Commission has the authority regarding how the item is advertised because the Commission would be making a change less far reaching than the one proposed in that while the Specific Plan now applies to several properties, the change would apply to only one. He advised that there is a chance the Commission will see another case like this which will seem equally as logical. Commissioner Blank commented that if the Commission is considering an amendment to the Specific Plan, it should be noticed as such. requested Mr. Dolan to clarify the statement that the Commission cannot make a variance to the Specific Plan. Mr. Dolan stated that a variance is not part of the Specific Plan or General Plan vocabulary; however, the Commission can make a change to provide an exception in a planning document. He indicated that the kind of change the Commission is making is addressing a circumstance that staff has addressed in the revised language where there is a list of three things, and one of the first three needs to be met; and then whatever is finally proposed has to meet the Design Guidelines and Design Standards. He noted that staff feels it has addressed anything that is negative about the change it is proposing. stated that he was trying to figure out whether or not the Commission could actually look at something and make a change without amending the Specific Plan. He noted that the Commission has done this in the past with the Happy Valley Specific Plan, which has an exact determination of how many lots an owner could have on his or her property, when the Commission actually increased that number but did not change the Specific Plan in the process. With reference to this proposal being a demolition, Commissioner Pentin inquired if all the landscaping in the front of the building would have to be removed since those walls will no longer exist. Ms. Rondash replied that the plans currently show the walls to remain even if it is considered a demolition. She stated that considering the scope of the project, including those walls that will remain, it is still a demolition. Commissioner Pentin referred to the established landscaping as shown on page 3 of the staff report. He noted that if the walls are remaining, and a new building comes up PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 14, 2011 Page 17 of 28