PC 061307 - Laserfiche WebLink

some concern related to this particular issue in regard to placing a condition requiring sprinklers for new commercial construction when it is under the 8,000-square-foot threshold that is specifically spelled out in the ordinance. Chairperson Fox inquired whether the Planning Commission could make a motion to reconsider this application. Commissioner Blank noted that the Commissioner’s Handbook stated that while the appeal process was available to Mr. O’Callaghan, it would not be appropriate for the Planning Commission to rehear an item that has already been heard. Ms. Decker noted that the Code requires that an appeal must be heard within 40 days; hence, this item would not be put off for months should it be appealed. Mr. Roush noted that there were reconsideration provisions in the City Council Rules and Procedures, and while he thought they tracked what was in the Commissioner’s Handbook, there may be some differences. He suggested that the Planning Commission may reconsider the application for the following reasons: 1)The appeal time period has not expired, and Mr. O’Callaghan could file an appeal the next day to be heard by the City Council. The Planning Commission’s decision was not technically final. 2)The Planning Commission may impose a condition requiring a fire sprinkler system on a commercial building less than 8,000 square feet, notwithstanding the ordinance, if there were reasons to do so, such as inadequate fire access or fire walls. He was not aware of the reasons stated in the staff report for that condition and could not comment on it. 3)The City Council has initiated an amendment change to this provision concerning reconsideration that would allow the Council to reconsider a use permit or a PDR in a certain period of time. He believed the Council would be open to the idea of not having it become effective immediately, although the ordinance has not completed the process. 4)The Planning Commission also imposed a condition regarding the extension of the pavers in front of the building that seemed to be contrary to what the City Council approved with respect to the manner in which the Downtown pavers were to look. If the Commission were to reconsider the fire sprinkler issue, the issue of the pavers may also return to the Commission as well. Mr. Roush advised that he was comfortable if the Planning Commission wished to reconsider this issue, considering the unique set of circumstances, and that it would be appropriate without opening the door to every decision being reconsidered. He advised that a Commissioner who voted for the approval should make that motion, and three votes would be required to reconsider it. If that did not occur, Mr. O’Callaghan had the remedy to appeal to the City Council. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 13, 2007 Page 4 of 29