AgdaPkt 2010-11-22 clsd and regular

Browse Search

8.A On September 24, 2010, the appellants, Ms. Albrecht and Mr. Warsowe, n ie g�ors directly adjacent to the subject property, filed an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval with the City Clerk (Attachment 4}. On October 22, 2010, a Supplemental Submission: Statement of Reasons or Grounds for the Appeal providing a basis for their appeal was filed with the City Clerk (Attachment 6). On November 15, 2010, the appellants, Ms. Albrecht and Mr. Warsowe, submitted to the City Clerk a second Supplemental Submission: "Offer of Proof' providing further comment on their grounds for appeal (Attachment 10). City staff's responses to the Offer of Proof are provided in Attachment 11. On November 17, 2090, the appellants, Ms. Albrecht and Mr. Warsowe, submitted to the City Clerk a third Supplemental Submission: "Offer of Praof 2" providing further comment on their grounds for appeal (Attachment 15). City staff's responses to the second Offer of Proof are provided in Attachment 16. Continuation Request The Public Hearing was scheduled for November 22, 2010 by the City Clerk. Ar�icle 48 of the Redwood City Zoning Ordinance authorizes and regulates appeals of the Zoning Administ�ator's decisions to the City Council. Section 48.6 states, "no public hearing need be held on appeals; provided, however, a public hearing may be held if deemed necessary in the public interest by the City Council." lf a public hearing is scheduled, the City's practice is to schedule that public hearing as soon as possible to facilitate timely resolution of the matter. The November 22, 2010 public hearing date was set in consideration of the appellants' request to hold the hearing within 120 days of their appeal and the applicants' request to hold the hearing as soon as possible. Additional discussion regarding the public hearing date can be referenced in Attachment 5 and Attachment 7, pages 4-5. On November 8, 2010, appellant Mr. Warsowe made a verbal request for a continuance during the Oral Communication portion of the City Council's meeting, specifically requesting a hearing on January 24, 2011 or February 21, 2011. On November 9, 2010, the appellants submitted written correspondence further summarizing their request for a continuance (Attachment 9). As noted in Attachment 9, the appellants request a continuance for additional time to prepare for the hearing, to secure experts, and due to a potential conflict with the November 22, 2010 hearing date. The scheduled public hearing date of November 22, 2010 represents a 59 day processing period from the original appeal date of September 24, 2010. As previously mentioned, the appellants have indicated two patential continuation dates, January 24, 2091 and February 21, 2011: January 24, 2011 represents a 122 day processing period from the original appeal date of September 24, 2010. Februarv 21, 2011 represents a 150 day processing period from the original appeal date of September 24, 2010. The applicant, Mr. Carroll, has requested that the appeal hearing be scheduled as soon as possible, and has informed City staff that he opposes continuance of the hearing.