pf10-002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

1. The word "Clause" references used hereunder are references to the Document °Request for Planning commission Action° Dated . 02/03/2010. 2. All other references are to the specific documents attached to the "Request..." in (1) above. 3. Other references are refereed to as "Attachment A, B, C" etc. and refer to documents submitted by Riaz Hussain. Submittal by Riaz Hussain Clause 4.2 States that the subject parking areas must be removed if the determination is made that they constitute a safety hazard and affect the flow of traffic in this area. Then Clause 4.3 states that that determination was indeed made. Riaz Hussain: The change that did not materialize: The document referred to does not specify how the council or the planning commission arrived at the clause in 4.2. A traffic hazard is referred to but no evidence is cited or presented. As a citizen I would expect at least some analysis based on some deductive reasoning if no other physical or empirical evidence is available. Stated as baldly as it is in Clause 4.2, it appears, to my complete consternation and amazement a completely arbitrary statement. I am compelled to ask, is this rule of procedure for the city council or the planning commission? Again in clause 4.3 the said determination is actually used and again there is no analysis. Simply the fact that a Deli use permit was brought up. This last never materialized and did not lead to any change in the use of the parking areas or the building. And yet the council used clause 4.2 to assert that the parking areas are [all of a sudden] a safety hazard and should be removed. I understand that the council covered itself when granting the original use permit by saying that this determination could change. But would it not stand to reason, indeed just for the looks to adduce at least some evidence to support the assertion. Are all previous assertions to be applied blindfold and for what reason? Should not there be some evidence of some sort somewhere in all this? I find all this perilously close to being arbitrary. And that leads to a host of other questions about our modus operandi. Why did the council not make this determination right after grenting it then? They could have! Why is it being done now? Why not never? What has changed? I have no answers but I do have some tra�c and crash reports from the county and DOT( see