Laserfiche WebLink
SIRACUSA:I realize it€s on the other side I€m just wondering if outdoor seating is <br />planned for that area? <br />LIM:No, no seating isplanned. <br />SIRACUSA:And if not why not. Why up here and not down there since you€ve got to <br />fill in the pool anyway? And that€s within the shoreline area? <br />LIM:I think this is an existing area of restaurant already and as a practical <br />matter what they€re going to be doing is adding a 12-foot section of seating right adjacent to the <br />existing restaurant. We felt that would be the-. It accomplishes 2 things. One is it gives the <br />existing restaurant enough seats to handle the cruise ship and group tours that come in. As you <br />probably know they come in with a certain number of people. The existing restaurant is too <br />small to seat the entire group so what this will do is allow the existing restaurant to handle those <br />groupsallatonetime.Theotherthingthatitdoesisrightnowonthenorthsideoftheproject <br />area as you can see from the picture it€s a relatively closed off and unused by the public at this <br />point in time. And we think once we implement the new improvements to the restaurant and the <br />ADA ramp then they€re going to open up that area for public use. Cause right now most of the <br />people just stay on the south side of the project. <br />SIRACUSA:Thank you for explaining that. <br />GALDONES:Commissioner Graham? <br />GRAHAM:I€d like to ask a question of our Planning Director. I guess this is all a <br />little surprise to me in that the last shoreline setback variance we had was for an area a short <br />ways north of here. Most of the Planning Commission members were here at that time but some <br />of them are new since then where it seemed like the Planning Director and the Planning <br />Department took a very rigorous legal interpretation of the shoreline setback variance then. That <br />was based on a hardship standard not the public interest standard. When I look at our Rule 7, I <br />believe it is for shoreline setback variance and read the public interest standard it says the <br />variance may be granted for an activity or a structure and then not just tourists. Going down 2 <br />lines which is undertaken by a private entity and is clearly in the public interest. And so it seems <br />to me that the activity or structure here is basically the seating lanai. And the seating lanai is not <br />being advertised as clearly in the public interest rather an additional activity is going along with <br />this application which somehow is balancing it out in its public interest aspects which seems to <br />me a bit of a nalo approach to shoreline setback variances. So I€d just like to get some more <br />commentary from the Planning Director on that. <br />YUEN:Well I think we do take a strict approach to shoreline setback variances. I <br />think if you look at the rule that€s the approach that you€re supposed to take. And so when this <br />initially came in we did recommend a denial of the 20-foot variance. But then the applicant <br />proposed a much more limited variance, really quite a small setback variance plus the <br />construction of this ADA accessible ramp which does bring, which is a public benefit and does <br />bring it into a public interest standard. I would say that the rule doesn€t clearly say that you can <br />do this kind of balancing but it makes sense to me. <br />EXHIBIT E <br />5 <br /> <br />