Statement:
This is a citizen request that the Council consider calling Planning Action 2005-00328 up on appeal because of important interpretation issues and because of issues around an alleged conflict of interest on the part of a member of the Planning Hearings Board that heard this action. |
| 0 |
Background:
Citizen Colin Swales has raised a question regarding a decision on Planning Action 2005-00328 per the attached memo. The specific interpretation issues that he feels the Council should consider revolve around what constitutes a Hotel. The Jasmine Building was constructed with a commercial component on the ground floor and two residential units above. The applicant applied for a conditional use permit to allow use of one of the units for overnight rental. The property is zoned C-1. A hotel is a conditional use in the C-1 zone. To allow the use of the residential unit for overnight rental, it must receive approval as a hotel. The Planning Hearings Board determined that it met the definition for hotel and granted the conditional use permit.
In regard to the conflict of interest question, Hearing Board member Kerry KenCairn on a regular basis teams with Evan Archerd to serve as the landscape architect on development projects. The building is owned by Archerd & Dresner, LLC. Additionally, Commissioner KenCairn did the landscaping plan on the initial construction of the Jasmine building. She declared a potential conflict of interest at the hearing board consideration of the conditional use permit, was not challenged on participating and participated in making the decision. Consistent with past planning commission practice, she did not declare the potential conflict of interest at the meeting in which the findings were adopted. For more information, see the attached memorandum from the legal department. |
| 0 |
Related City Policies:
Comply with state law relating to public official conduct. |
| 0 |
Council Options:
The Council may decline to call the matter up on appeal, in which case, if Mr. Swales feels the issues are important enough, he could appeal the issue to the Council. If no appeal were filed, the Hearing Board decision would become the final decision 15 days following adoption of the findings.
The Council could choose to call the matter up on appeal, in which case a de novo public hearing would be scheduled before the Council on the application. |
| 0 |
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends the Council not call the issue up on the conflict of interest allegation based upon the reasoning included in the memorandum from Mike Reeder, Assistant City Attorney. Staff does not have a recommendation as to whether the interpretation of the definition of Hotel presents significant enough issues to warrant calling the matter up on appeal. |
|
Potential Motions:
Council moves to appeal the decision made in Planning Action 2005-00328.
(Note: If the Council does not take any action on this matter, Mr. Swales would still have the opportunity to appeal the decision of the Hearings Board. If he did not appeal, the decision of the Hearings Board will be the final decision.) |
| 0 |
Attachments:
Click on the PDF file links below to view the following attachments:
• Memo Dated July 14, 2005 to Mayor and Council from Legal Department
• Statement submitted by Mr. Randall Hopkins [Submitted at July 19th Council Meeting] |
(124.9KB)