I mean, i saw your your rendering of what you first proposed, but you would have had to tinker well, the first proposal as you can see in that slide is a 15 foot rear yard, so that would have required a variance for the last 9 feet, so likely this proposal would have ended up with a complying rear yard and no variance. Okay. And nine dwelling units. Thank you. Mr. Teague . Good evening commissioners. The subject property at 645 valencia street is located in the valencia street neighborhood district a raressance application was submitted in may 2016 to rhenvate the existing two story building, and requires relief from the rear yard, open space and ground floor parking set back requirements of the planning code. The variance hearing was held in december 2016, but neighborhood notification for the associated Building Permit did not begin until january 2017. During that notification period, the appellant filed a request for discretionary review. The Planning Commission hearing was held in
Good evening again president honda, commissioners, cory teague from Planning Department staff. Id like to begin with some Procedural Department background. The subject property at 2523 steiner street is located within the rh 1 Zoning District and a 40 x height and bulk district. The proposal is to expand the existing third and fourth story of the existing singlefamily home into the required rear yard. Based on the design feedback from the Planning Departments residential Design Planning team, the Planning Department revised such that the planned structure encroached into the rear yard approximately 93 into the ground floor. The proposed addition variance was heard at a joint hearing with the Planning Commission on june 15, 2017 where they also held a hearing for discretionary review. So summarize the comments, the acting Zoning Administrator stating that can be challenging to make a required finding that the project would not be injurous to the project in the vicinity however the subje
Will have, in a book form, a bound copy that we intend to distribute to every unit or company within a station. We have 300 copies coming, that will be in book format. Some will be just sort of a simple binding and some a coil binding. And as soon as we get those, we are supposed to get the shipment today, but i want to let you know this is available, and to answer your question, we will also distribute it in a p. D. F. Format, so it can be copied. Its meant to be shared. Wonderful, thank you. Thank you, commissioner hardeman. Madam secretary, would you call the next item. Item ten, closed session, Public Employee performance evaluation of Fire Commission secretary. Item a, Public Comment on all matters pertaining to potential closed session. President cleaveland is there any Public Comment . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Commissioners. What is our decision on whether to go into closed session . So moved, mr. President. Commissioner covington second. President cleaveland all i
Should happen to the fees. I dont know if we can say that. Im concerned about that. I guess you could express your desire and emotion, but its not going to be legally binding on the appeals or the department. So would we uphold the existing fee or remain silent on it . I think you have to impose the assessment of costs. Or you could reduce it, if you wanted to. We can reduce it, but we have to assign the fees. Okay. I dont think we can again, i think we can say what our desire is or we can say in Public Comment what our hope to the resolution is, but it needs to be binding. To the chair, this is throwing the baby out with the bath water, but if we reduce the fees now with the notion that were being proactive in having these others come together, well take that risk that everybody is going to come to a conclusive decision. What were interested in is getting resolution. We have the autonomy now to come out in front of it and say, heres what were going to do to help the case. Now the part
Run as an operator, so as currently written, allowed equity applicants, folks that were shutdown in 1996 those are the only two classifications that are allowed to go move forward for a permit in 2018, so we wanted to widen that pool, and also creating the opportunity for nonequity operators to be equity incubbators, which means they would help to procure a local, Diverse Workforce and have the privilege of applying for a permit in 2018, so the equity incubbators must have at least 50 local hire, 50 of their employees must satisfy the residency requirement, the limited assets, and two or more from the list that i just read, so it could be someone who went to Public School and whose parent was arrested or convicted; and they must provide a Community Investment plans, demonstrating engagement with businesses and residents within 500 feet of the proposed cannabis businesses, and the objective of that is we wanted to not be super predescriptive, but that the cannabis business does respond