2003-11-07 TDLNR - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

OÓTOOLE:I guess, IÓm trying to determine what could be modified Code. I mean, in theory, I donÓt see how you can just by agreement, if it is a requirement of the Code. And maybe that this is not necessary because thereÓs nothing that applies or -. YUEN:There are a number of things, there are a number of parking provisions in the Code that are, that can be modified by the Director. OÓTOOLE:So that would be in compliance with the Code? YUEN:Yes. SPRINGER:Members, is there any question or comment with regard to the proposed amendments with which the Planning Director agrees? KUBOTA:Madam Chair? What that, the outcome of the discussion is It can, itÓs okay? ItÓs not okay? Do we need to make an amendment to that? GRAHAM:I have a suggestion. SPRINGER:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:My suggestion was that maybe we could, in the No. 2 here, could put a period after Zoning Code, where we have compliance with the Zoning Code. And then, thereafter, we could say Ðcompliance with Planning Department rule, there shall be compliance with Planning Department Rule 17 associated with the proposed use,Ñ and then add in what James said about Ðexcept as modified,Ñ so that it only applies to the Planning Department Rule 17. SPRINGER:Thank you, Commissioner Graham. Mr. Leonard? LEONARD:We have no problem with that. SPRINGER:Does that make it easier for you, Pat? OÓTOOLE:You know, if the rule or Code itself allows the Director to have some room to negotiate with the Applicant, then I donÓt think that language is necessary. If it does not, then the Code is the Code and the Rule is the Rule. SPRINGER:So does Commissioner GrahamÓs suggestion make sense to put a period after Zoning Code and begin a separate sentence that addresses Rule 17? OÓTOOLE:Well, my question is why would a rule be able to be modi agreement between, unless the rule itself says it can be; and then it really doesnÓt seem to be necessary for that language in there. But -. 23