16 - Laserfiche WebLink

not receive the application by the stated deadline; thus, the City's Code Enforcement Officer sent a second letter on September 25, 2007 reminding the Academy that an application fora CUP was required. (See Attachments 4.2-A & 4.2-B for staff correspondence.) On September 28, 2007, the appellant submitted an application for a conditional use permit. Based on the application, the scope of operations differed from what had been indicated on the application for the Zoning Certificate. On November 7, 2007 staff sent the appellant a letter stating that the business could continue to operate until such time as the CUP application was heard by the Planning Commission but that the Academy had to operate with not more than 20 students at any given time as stated in its initial application. (See Attachment 4.2-D for staff correspondence). The conditional use permit application was scheduled for the Planning Commission hearing on December 12, 2007, with a recommendation for denial because staff could not make the use permit findings based on parking and circulation and operational concerns. (See Attachment 4.4 for the Planning Commission staff report). The item was continued, however, at the appellant's request in order to discuss with staff how the appellant could revise the application to meet the parking and circulation requirements. On December 18, 2007, staff met with the appellant to discuss the written narrative. During this meeting, the appellant indicated that the written narrative that he had provided was inaccurate and that he would like to re-submit a revised narrative that more accurately portrayed the scope of his operations. Although the Planning Department typically allows businesses to operate while applications are being processed, after meeting with the appellant, staff determined that the appellant must cease operations until a conditional use permit was secured, due to the inconsistencies with his statement and operations and his inability to clearly define his business plan. Please see Attachment 4.2-E for staff's letter to the appellant dated December 26, 2007. Staff met with the appellant again on January 4, 2008, to discuss his concerns regarding staffs decision to have the Academy cease operations pending his approval of the CUP. During this meeting, the appellant provided staff with additional narrative explaining his proposed use and requested staff to reconsider the directive to cease operations. After the meeting concluded, the appellant submitted a further written narrative (Attachment 4.1-B) outlining modifications to the previous written narrative. Staff found the operations described in the new narrative to again be inconsistent with how the appellant described the proposed operations during the January 4 meeting and inconsistent with the description of operations in prior conversations with staff. Accordingly, staff declined the appellant's request to allow the Academy to operate until such time that the Planning Commission could consider the application for a conditional use permit. In response to staffs decision to have the Academy cease operations, the appellant sent staff a letter on January 14, 2008, in hopes of further clarifying the scope of Page 3 of 8