| Synopsis: |
On December 12, 2003, the applicant filed his request for
the above referenced planning action. On February 18, 2004, the application
was deemed complete by staff. The 120-day limit runs on June 18, 2004. Should
the hearing run long, the Council has the option of continuing the hearing
to the June 1, 2004 meeting, with adoption of findings on June 15, 2004.
Reviews of the application were held in front of the Historic Commission
on January 7, 2004 and in front of the Tree Commission on January 8, 2004
and additional review on March 4, 2004. Their comments are included in the
record. The Historic Commission recommended approval of the application by
unanimous vote. The Tree Commission recommended that specific conditions
be attached to the action, should it be approved by the Planning Commission.
A public hearing was properly noticed and held in front of the full Planning
Commission on March 9, 2004 at which time testimony was heard and evidence
was submitted . The Planning Commission voted to approve the action by a
7-1 vote.
After the close of the public hearing and vote by the Planning Commission,
a 57-page document was submitted to the City by Randall Hopkins (and copies
may have been sent to Council members and Tree Commission members) outlining
alleged deficiencies and misrepresentations of the original planning submittals.
However, since the public hearing was closed, this information could not
be included as part of the record of this action, nor reviewed by the Planning
Commission. Mr. Hopkins was informed that this information could be used
as the basis of an appeal to the City Council.
The Planning Commission adopted the findings supporting their decision to
approve the application on April 13, 2004, and the findings were mailed to
the involved parties on April 15, 2004. A timely appeal was filed by Randall
Hopkins on April 23, 2004. The appeal request stated five issues as the grounds
for the appeal:
| 1. |
Applicant has failed to comply with Section 18.61.200A2, 18.62.040H,
18.61.050, 18.112.090, and 1.08.020 of the Municipal Code, and has violated
same. |
| 2. |
Applicant has failed to satisfy the applicable Criteria for Issuance
of a Tree Removal permit under 18.61.080 of the Code and filed an incomplete
application and evidence. |
| 3. |
The proposed development fails to fulfill the City's Large Scale Development
site standards. |
| 4. |
Removal of the tree sought to be removed is unnecessary to fulfill the
City's site design standards. |
| 5. |
Undisclosed conflicts of interest in the proceedings below in violation
of Sec. 18.108.100 of the Code |
The majority of these issues were not raised specifically with the Planning
Commission to allow them an opportunity to consider these issues in their
review. The applicant's attorney has prepared a response to these issues
and it is included in the supplemental record (Section A). Further, the applicant
and his landscape architect and project architect have provided additional
information addressing the issues raised on appeal. Staff concurs with the
applicant's attorney regarding the five grounds for appeal.
Regarding Objections 1 and 2, we believe that the applicant has provided
the necessary information and evidence necessary.
Regarding Objection 3 raised by the appellant, Staff reviewed this
application as a new and separate development of 8,325 sq. ft. Section
18.72.050.B states:
"Any development (emphasis added) in the Detail Site Review
Zone as defined in the Site Review Standards adopted pursuant to this chapter,
which exceeds 10,000 square feet or is longer than 100 feet in length or
width, shall be reviewed according to the Type 2 procedure."
While this building may have common structural attachments to the adjoining
building, it is not part of the previous development of the adjacent historic
structure. It is not an expansion of the adjacent building but rather, the
interior spaces, uses, and floors of the new development are independent
of the other buildings and it functions as a separate and independent
development. We do not believe that this application constitutes a development
greater than 10,000 sq. ft.
Regarding Objection 4, we believe that the retention of the alder
tree precludes the reasonable use of the property for commercial uses intended
in the downtown commercial district. The applicant's findings and testimony
from the applicant's arborist indicate that essentially any structural
development of the property would negatively impact the Alder to the point
where it is unlikely to survive, no matter the limited nature of that structural
development. Downtown design standards requiring buildings to be constructed
from up to the sidewalk for an active pedestrian environment and a compatible
street façade further preclude the preservation of the alder.
Regarding Objection 5, no evidence has been provided regarding any
conflicts of interest in the previous proceedings. Therefore, Staff has no
response to this objection.
The Tree Commission has submitted a memo to the Mayor and Council outlining
their position on the information submitted after the close of the Planning
Commission hearing, and the difficulty in reviewing the information.
Staff would concur with the difficulty in addressing substantive issues after
the close of a public hearing. The issues raised by Mr. Hopkins were submitted
to the City after the close of the hearing, and the Planning Commission could
only consider that information placed before them while the hearing process
was open. Similarly, the Historic and Tree Commissions considered the information
placed before them during the hearing process. While the amount of information
submitted to the City was substantial, we cannot restart the process at the
previous levels. The information submitted by Mr. Hopkins provides a basis
for his appeal, and the Council should carefully consider all submitted evidence. |
