SR 06:245 - Laserfiche WebLink

Zoninl!: Administrator Hearinl!:s At the public hearing on March 9, staff presented the project and recommended that the Zoning Administrator approve the proposed project subject to the conditions of approval listed in Exhibit B of the staff report dated March 9,2006. After listening to the comments and concerns of the neighbors and applicants, the Zoning Administrator, Ms. Decker, decided to continue the project so that she could meet with all parties individually and conduct a site visit to the neighborhood. Staff met with the involved parties on an individual basis to listen and discuss their concerns. The Knights submitted a written statement in lieu of meeting with Ms. Decker due to scheduling conflicts. During these meetings, the neighbors restated their concerns of the proposed second- story and stated that there appeared to be no viable mitigation measures that would suffice for the approval. At the second public hearing on April 13, the Zoning Administrator discussed the outcome of the individual meetings and site visits. Those opposed to the project felt that the mitigation measures that had been discussed were not satisfactory. Therefore, a compromise between the opposing neighbors and applicants could not be reached. The Zoning Administrator approved Case PADR-1472. Please see Exhibit E for the April 13 Zoning Administrator action report and Exhibit F for the meeting minutes. After the hearing, Dennis and Barbara Georgatos, neighbors directly to the rear of the Knights, appealed. Planninl!: Commission Hearinl!:s The Planning Commission held a public hearing for the appeal on June 14,2006 to review the subject application. After hearing all public testimony and acknowledging that both parties have been through several meetings with staff prior this hearing, the Commission suggested that the applicants (the Knights) and the appellants (the Georgatos') might be able to reach an agreement through a City-sponsored outside professional facilitation. The Commission continued the project to the next available public hearing and requested that staffretum to that hearing with the feasibility of a City-sponsored mediator. At its second Planning Commission hearing on June 28, 2006, staff reported back to the Commission that the City did not have the resources to engage in an outside facilitator. Staff informed the Planning Commission that they could direct that the project undergo a staff facilitated process before proceeding to the City Council. After hearing public testimony, the Commission upheld the appeal on a 4-1 vote, thereby denying the Zoning Administrator's approval and the Administrative Design Review with the following direction: Should the decision be appealed to the City Council, mediation by a third party shall take place prior to a Council hearing. Mary Roberts, a former Planning Commissioner, volunteered to act as the facilitator. SR 06:245 Page 3 of8