pf_01656 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

f _2_ breaking up. The council acted to revoke the special use permit effective May 22, 1978, unless all conditions were completed. On May 22, 1978, a re -inspection was made and determined that a section of curbing along Partridge was z- 'T not completed and additional portions of the curb were breaking up; no additional sod had been laid; and that trees had been planted, but were not in accordance with the approved landscaping plan. On May 24, 1978, the council. mended their action of May 8, and extended the date for revocation to June 12. At that meeting Mr. Trapp stated he did not want to sod the area from C-2 northerly and adjacent to the storage building. When the council considers the special use conditions on June 12, it will be the ninth time this matter has been agendized. In addition, the staff has spent an inordinate nunber'of hours in inspections and attenpts to secure compliance. The staff attempts to work with these type situations in such a manner as to bring about compliance. In same situations the applicant may not have fully understood the requirements or the applicant presents certain problems which make it difficult to meet the conditions. In such cases additional time nay be required, but the applicant has demonstrated sincere effort to comply with the oonditicns to achieve the intended end result. We view this as part of our function and responsibilities; i.e., to exercise reasonable approaches to enforce conditions imposed by the Councl and city codes. However, the process still makes us vulnerable to criticisms of arbitrary or selective enforcements. The objective and subjective factors in this situation appear to be as follows: 1. The applicant agreed to the conditions of tle special use permit adopted by the council cn October 20, 1976. 2. ne city has permitted the applicant an extraordinary Mount of time to meet the conditions, which certainly meets any definition of reasonableness. 3. The.applicant has not demonstrated good faith effort to meet the conditions. items which were earpleted, were not canpleted according to the plans or were done in such a manner that produced a result contrary to the purpose of the conditions; i.e., to make that property ocupatible with other properties in the area. The trees and shrubs that were installed were generally and substantially below what the approved plan required. The curbing was installed in such a manner as to further distract fran the aesthetics of the site. 4. Zhe applicant throughout the entire process has publicly and flipplantly disregarded these conditions. In my opinion this poses a potential serious problem in getting compliance fran subsequent applicants.