Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />MEMORANDUM <br /> <br />DATE: <br /> <br />Arpil 16, 15191 <br /> <br />TO: <br /> <br />FROM: <br /> <br />Steve sarkozy <br />craig A. Waldron [;1J),1 <br />Calibre Ridge conc~ <br /> <br />SUBJECT: <br /> <br /> <br />Background <br /> <br />I have a number of concerns relating to the calibre Ridge Project <br />that surfaced Monday night. My respective concerns are as follows: <br /> <br />1. I believe the staff formu1ated a reasonable opini:m in <br />ascertain lng that the proposed changes in the Calibre <br />Ridge :'roject were not substantial and thus did not <br />warrant a new review by Planning Commission and Council. <br />staff has had the discretion to analyze tbss& <br />projects, based on the potential impact on adjacent <br />properties. In reviewing tt-1s project re) ating to <br />setback, landscaping, exterior materials, etc., it was <br />determined that it would not have substantial impact on <br />adjacent properties. This is not dissimilar from the <br />decision staff made regarding Tanurb's expansion inwhicb <br />there were extensive internal modifications, however the <br />footprint remained substantially the same. However, <br />pursuant to the COuncils request, I will be seeking <br />clarification frald Hr. Bell regarding this issue. <br /> <br />2 . I am very concerned that the council may want to brinq <br />this issue back to it for a public bearing. The first <br />hearings were extremely agonizing in that the Council <br />did not have a great deqree of flexibility to deny this <br />project, and thus it had to be approved in spite of <br />substantial public opposition. In discussing this issue <br />with Mr. Shardlow, it was his preliminary opinion that <br />the land use modifications are not ma' Jr and his <br />recommendation would still be the same, -whi~ is to <br />appr~ve the project. Thus, the Council would be <br />placed in the same untenabJe position of facing the <br />neighborhood opposition, with very little flexibility in <br />terms of being able to deny the project. It was our <br />intent nQt to place tl19 council in this position once <br />again. <br /> <br />j <br />'~ <br />1 <br />j <br /> <br />,~ <br /> <br />J <br />~ <br /> <br />3. Going back to the first item, I am very uncomfortable <br />that the staff operates with significant discretiQn in <br />deciding whether a plan modification is substantial. <br />Based on this discretion, st~ff can continually be <br />sUbjected to a different interpretation in virtually <br />every instance in which this situation surtac..es. In <br />order to avoid what I see as, being an untenable position <br />