My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Correspondence #41
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2022
>
12/20/2022 Special & Regular
>
Correspondence #41
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/22/2022 9:49:20 AM
Creation date
12/20/2022 10:02:48 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
117
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Response to Melinda Luthin and William Stevens Letters Dated December 20, 2022 <br />project to be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit to construct the project. Without such <br />evidence, building permits may not be issued. <br />Comment 6: This comment states that the project has substantially changed since Planning <br />Commission approval of the project in that outdoor storage of goods on the project site constitutes <br />a substantive change from the initial project scope and approval. <br />Response 6: SAMC Section 41-473(b) states that outdoor storage of materials, products, <br />equipment or vehicles, shall be screened by a solid fence or wall not less than eight (8) feet in <br />height. Materials, products or equipment stored outdoors shall not be piled higher than the height <br />of the fence or wall, nor encroach into required parking and landscape areas. Outdoor storage is <br />permissible subject to satisfaction of this operational standard on all properties in the Light <br />Industrial (M-1) zoning district. <br />Comment 7: This comment asserts that due to the difficulty in obtaining public records associated <br />with the proposed project, the project should be continued to allow additional time for the parties <br />to discuss the project. The comment also alleges that staff and the Planning Commission did not <br />follow standard protocol for release of public records, submittal of an appeal.: application, and <br />agendizing the item for consideration. <br />Response 7: The City provided the appellant the opportunity to view the project file by submitting <br />a request to view public records. The appellant ultimately filed the ,request, and the project <br />materials have been made available for viewing, including on October 21, 2022 and most recently <br />on December 19, 2022. Moreover, staff contacted Mr. Stevens' attorney multiple times to discuss <br />the process to submit the appeal application, and the appeal was successfully submitted within <br />the 10-day period authorized by the SAMC. Lastly, the Planning Commission followed all required <br />protocol to agendize the item and hold a public hearing on the item, after. having..continved. the. <br />item twice before the public hearing on October 10, 2022. <br />Page 5 of 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.