PC 110911 - Laserfiche WebLink

Chair Narum noted that this is a 2-2 vote and asked Ms. Seto what the implications of that are. Ms. Seto explained that when the Commission faces a 2-2 voteno action with regard to this application. She stated that in cases like this, the Commission could try a motion in favor or against, the Chair would note that it is a 2-2 vote, and staff would recommend that because there is one absence and one abstention due to a conflict of interest, the Commission consider a motion to continue th the matter where a 5 Commissioner could be present. Chair Narum inquired if it was appropriate to re-open the public hearing to determine whether or not the applicant had a preference. Ms. motion to continue the item or ask the applicant if he wants to continue the item. Commissioner Pearce inquired it this could be continued to a date certain as she would hate to draw this out much longer for the applicant and all parties concerned. She asked if this could be continued to the next Commission meeting on November 30, 2011, if necessary. Mr. Dolan replied that at the moment, there is a very large item that would take a long th time that is scheduled on the November 30 agenda, but there are some issues with that project and may require some juggling. He noted, however, that this is not certain and the Commission can schedule the continuance for then and end up with quite an agenda. Commissioner Olson inquired if the Commission could simply forward this to the City Council. Ms. Seto said no. She explained that a tie vote means no action; it is neither a denial nor an approval and, therefore, there is no action to appeal. Commissioner Olson moved to continue the item. Commissioner Pearce seconded the motion, with an amendment that it be th continued to a date when there is a 5 Commissioner or an odd number of Commissioners present. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, November 9, 2011 Page 25 of 29