Laserfiche WebLink
Community Development Director Frolik indicated the City is currently drafting administrative <br />hearing process that would give the City the ability to tag and assign a penalty. <br /> <br />Commissioner Johnson reiterated that something in between notification and revocation would <br />be helpful. He indicated if it has to be incorporated in the code itself, they should consult the <br />City Attorney. <br /> <br />Commissioner Watson asked if there was verbiage that talks about if someone does not have a <br />(;UP, what the ramifications would be. For example, the trucks at the Gun Club, where the <br />owner was doing it, so he was given a CUP because he was already operating. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt asked if they were talking about a flat fee or a misdemeanor violation. <br /> <br />Commissioner Johnson indicated it could be either. The question is, if someone does not come <br />in to request a CUP, what recourse the city has. <br /> <br />Mr. Gordon indicated there was a penalty section of the ordinance, which he reviewed for the <br />Commission. He stated the penalty wording gives the options to the City Council. He indicated <br />if they needed to find language to impose penalties at the staff level, they could do that also. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt stated if there was a clear violation of a CUP after notification, he would not <br />want to have to run it by the City Council for a monetary penalty, but would want that process <br />before the CUP is revoked. <br /> <br />Mr. Gordon stated they would have the City Attorney provide more insight into their options. <br /> <br />Mr. Gordon indicated that under variances, they inserted 'practical difficulty', along with the <br />undue hardship phrasing that was already there. He stated this was not uncommon, and allows <br />the City the ability to grant variances when they cannot quite prove undue hardship, but it makes <br />sense to allow it. <br /> <br />Commissioner Van Scoy asked if this would not make it easier for someone to challenge the <br />City's decision. <br /> <br />Mr. Gordon indicated it is hard to take a City to task on variances. If the City can find some <br />Findings of Fact to do what they want, the com't will not typically reverse that decision. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Frolik stated she was under the impression they wanted to put <br />detached townhouses and twin homes through site plan review also. <br /> <br />Commissioner Johnson indicated a detached townhome could be a single-family home. What <br />they really want to focus on is commonly owned land. <br /> <br />Planning Commission/April 3, 2003 <br /> Page 12 of 14 <br /> <br /> <br />