My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
5/17/1988
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1988
>
5/17/1988
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/2/2023 10:51:50 AM
Creation date
6/12/2015 2:17:35 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
05/17/1988
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
73
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
construct a 5600 sq. ft. warehouse and shop addition (to an <br />existing 1500 sq. ft. building) with associated improvements at <br />12855 79th Avenue in Roseland. The proposal was considered to be <br />an expansion of an existing home occupation use within the ROSE -4 <br />zoning district. Although the special ROSE -4 home occupation <br />regulations were recently repealed, the subject application was <br />accepted for review prior to the ordinance change. Therefore, <br />this application was reviewed under the "old" ROSE -4 home occupa- <br />tion criteria. <br />This plan was originally heard by the Planning and Zoning Commis- <br />sion at its regular meeting of February 11, 1988. At this meet- <br />ing, with the applicant in attendance, action was taken to table <br />the item until a later date in order to allow the applicant and <br />staff to work out several outstanding technical issues. The <br />following is a sequence of events since that meeting. <br />CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS: <br />- February 17, 1988. The applicant personally picked up a copy <br />of staff's action letter which advised him of the Commis- <br />sion's action (see attached letter dated 2/15/88). This <br />letter set out the timeframes which staff established based <br />upon Commission action, so 'that the application could be <br />considered in a timely manner. <br />- February 19, 1988. Staff received a letter from the appli- <br />cant's attorney advising staff that the applicant objected to <br />the timeframes set forth, and requested additional time for <br />revisions (see attached letter dated 2/17/88). <br />- February 23, 1988. Staff contacted applicant's attorney and <br />advised him that the timeframe issue would be brought before <br />the Planning and Zoning Commission in order to verify its <br />true intent of tabling the item. <br />- February 25, 1988. The Planning and Zoning Commission took <br />action to have this matter heard at its regular meeting of <br />March 24, 1988 (see attached minutes from 2/25/88). <br />February 26, 1988. Staff sent action letter to applicant <br />notifying him of the action taken by the Planning and Zoning <br />commission at the February 25, 1988 meeting (see attached <br />letter dated 2/26/88). <br />- March 3, 1988. Staff received a letter from the applicant's <br />attorney concerning several informational aspects of the plan <br />(see attached letter dated 3/3/88). No revised plans submit- <br />ted as of this date. <br />- March 8, 1988. Staff received a letter from the applicant's <br />attorney advising staff that the deadlines imposed upon the <br />applicant were unreasonable (see attached letter dated <br />3/7/88) . <br />March 10, 1988. Staff responded that this should not have <br />been a problem (see attached letter dated 3/10/88). <br />- March 16, 1988. The only additional information submitted by <br />the applicant or the applicant's attorney was the letter <br />dated 3/3/88 that served to clarify the applicant's in- <br />tentions. Actual plan revisions have never been submitted, <br />and at its regular meeting of March 16, 1988,.the County's <br />Technical Review Committee re -discussed the original plan and <br />the attorney's letter dated March 3, 1988. <br />24 <br />AY 17 1988 <br />Boor 72 r.P.,[ 367 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.