Laserfiche WebLink
I� <br /> To Planning Commission <br /> From: Tom Gau <br /> Sub : SU-92-14 (Lee) <br /> Date: 12-17-92 <br /> Page: - 2 - <br /> the Conditions recommended in the staff report, with the above <br /> revision to Condition of Approval No. 2 .d. The motion did not <br /> pass, for lack of a majority vote, and was subsequently continued <br /> to the October 15, 1992 , Planning Commission hearing to allow the <br /> absent Commissioner to listen to the tape of the hearing and cast <br /> a vote. At that hearing, the applicant requested that the matter <br /> be continued until October 22, 1992, because only five <br /> Commissioners were present. The continuance was granted by the <br /> Planning Commission, and the matter was rescheduled as requested. <br /> At the October 22 , 1992 , hearing, staff again discussed the need <br /> for the applicant to prepare a drainage study and stated that no <br /> additional drainage should enter adjacent properties. Following <br /> further discussion, a motion was made and adopted to approve the <br /> subdivision with the Conditions of Approval recommended in the <br /> staff report and not the revised Condition recommended by staff. <br /> The Planning Commission is being asked to clarify which Condition <br /> of Approval was the one that it actually intended to place on the <br /> approved subdivision. <br /> RL/blm <br /> I� <br /> f <br /> 'I <br /> - t <br />