Laserfiche WebLink
Commissioner Barker feels it would be fair to grant the increase only if it is done for all property <br />owners. She feels that if the Commission approves this application, then all of the other property owners <br />will request increases anyway. Commissioner Wright disagreed, stating that such applications should be <br />considered on a case-by-case basis. A brief discussion took place among the Commission relating to the <br />intent of the guidelines, and the fact that, if approved, this application would be the only exception to the <br />guidelines. <br />Commissioner Wright commented that although he finds the azchitecture attractive, the design is beyond <br />the guidelines. He, therefore, supports staffs recommendation #2. <br />Commissioner Kumazan Feels that the applicant has already made numerous major concessions to satisfy <br />staff and that the modification should be approved. <br />Commissioner Dove agreed with Commissioner Wright in that the guidelines should be adhered to. He <br />feels that if a 10% increase is granted now, other applications will follow. He reluctantly agreed that the <br />modification should be denied. However, he feels that the applicant should be given some leniency on <br />the colors. <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Wright, seconded by Commissioner Dove, recommending <br />approval of staff s Alternative #2, subject to the condition identified in Exhibit "B". <br />ROLL CALL VOTE <br />AYES: Commissioners Bazker, Dove, and Wright <br />NOES: Commissioner Kumazan and Chair Cooper <br />ABSENT: None <br />ABSTAIN: None <br />Resolution No. PC-98-22 was entered and adopted as motioned. <br />7. MATTERS INITIATED BY COMMISSION MEMBERS <br />a. Review of Growth Management Ordinance <br />Chair Cooper noted that this item has been continued to the April 8, 1998, Meeting. He asked staff to <br />prepare a modification of Table 1. <br />Commissioner Wright stated that Mika's has had more than enough time to comply with conditions, and <br />he, therefore, wants her to appear before the Commission. Mr. Iserson agreed to follow-up on this. <br />8. MATTERS FOR COMMISSION'S REVIEW <br />a. Future Planning Calendar <br />There were none. <br />b. Actions of the Citv Council <br />- There were none. <br />Planning Commission Page 23 March 25, 1998 <br />__ _ _ T __ <br />