Laserfiche WebLink
June 18, 2015 Staff Report Page 2 <br /> <br />3. May 28 letter to Preserve LLC regarding recommendation from the <br />Environmental Advisory Committee; <br />4. May 28 letter to Sarah Hanson regarding CUP approval; <br />5. May 28 Police Department Incident Crime Report regarding parking <br />complaint; <br />6. May 29 letter to Blaine and Lee Jones regarding lot consolidation. <br /> <br />C. Council Meeting Notes: <br />The City Council Meeting was held June 2, 2015. An excerpt from that <br />meeting is included here for your information. <br />6.1. Planning Commission Report <br /> <br /> Dawn Bittner explained that the Planning Commission unanimously <br />approved a conditional use permit for Sarah Hanson to operate a residential <br />commercial cleaning service, drop-off rug cleaning service, and interior <br />detailing of motor vehicles within the downtown mixed use zoning <br />classification. <br /> <br />6.2. Ordinance Amendment Regarding Appeal Process <br /> <br /> Dawn Bittner explained that the Planning Commission is recommending an <br />amendment to Chapter 17 of the City Code to change the timeframe to file <br />an appeal of a decision made by the Zoning Administrator or the Planning <br />Commission. The proposed amendment would require an appeal to be filed <br />with the City Clerk within 15 days of the decision and the appeal would be <br />heard by either the Planning Commission or City Council within 30 days of <br />the original action. <br /> <br /> COUNCIL MEMBER AKERSON MOVED TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCE <br />AMENDING CHAPTER 17 OF THE CITY CODE REGARDING APPEALS <br />PROCESS. COUNCIL MEMBER LOUKOTA SECONDED THE MOTION. <br /> <br /> Council Member Akerson questioned whether the timeframe allowed in the <br />ordinance would be enough if the person making the appeal was required to <br />provide some type of documentation. He noted that there may be instances <br />when the appealer must provide a survey, legal documents, or other types <br />of documentation that takes some time to acquire. He questioned if there is <br />a provision in the ordinance for a time extension. <br /> <br /> The Council suggested that the Planning Commission review the ordinance <br />amendment again and that it consider the possibility of more time needed <br />for the appeal process. <br /> <br /> COUNCIL MEMBER AKERSON WITHDREW HIS MOTION. COUNCIL <br />MEMBER LOUKOTA WITHDREW THE SECOND. <br />