Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Ms. Harryman replied that the Planning Commission is charged with the duty of making a <br />decision one way or the other and cannot forward the matter to the City Council without doing <br />so. Legally, it did not matter whether the Commission upheld or denied the appeal as long as <br />one of the parties appealed the decision and that mediation was required by the Planning <br />Commission should the project be appealed to the City Council. The mediation process would <br />be triggered at that time. She noted that it would be possible to uphold the appeal without <br />prejudice. <br /> <br />Commissioner Fox moved to uphold P AP-93, thereby denying the Zoning Administrator's <br />approval of case PADR-1472, without prejudice, and with the provision that should the <br />decision be appealed to the City Council, mediation by a third party take place prior to the <br />Council hearing, with membership to be limited to the appellants, the applicants, the <br />architect, and a member in support ofthe project. <br />Commissioner Blank seconded the motion <br /> <br />Commissioner Olson believed it was important for the Commission to take a position. <br /> <br />Commissioner Fox believed that mediation should be required before going to Council. <br /> <br />Ms. Harryman noted that any part of the motion may be appealed. <br /> <br />ROLL CALL VOTE: <br /> <br />AYES: <br />NOES: <br />ABSTAIN: <br />RECUSED: <br />ABSENT: <br /> <br />Commissioners Arkin, Blank, Fox, and Pearce. <br />Commissioner Olson. <br />None. <br />None. <br />None. <br /> <br />Resolution No. PC-2006-30 was entered and adopted as motioned. <br /> <br />Commissioner Olson was concerned that this motion would not speed the process with the <br />conditions outlined. <br /> <br />EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, June 28, 2006 <br /> <br />Page 50f 5 <br />