1. 1

    Easy Rider

    Thank you to Karen D. & others for spending the time to negotiate with Connolly. I’ve tried to stay globally aware of this deal and Marta and the involved community has shown much patience. It seems like the approach is simply to wear the neighborhood down by making incremental compromises and hoping we just throw up our hands in defeat. I’d love to have some more restaurants in the area, but I can wait if it mean’s less apartments.

  2. 2

    Thomas Porter

    Again, this should be a completely new start! Why deprive everyone of a detailed staff analysis & recommendation?

  3. 3


    I believe the Council voted to support the recommendation to send the application back to the Planning Commission with a full ‘reset’ of the process, including staff recommendations on the revised site plan.

  4. 4


    My Man! The D1 Angel!

  5. 5

    Thomas Porter

    Stan I appreciate that conceptually… but why do they get to keep their place in line, under old ordinances, outside the moratorium when absolutely NOTHING about this last plan resembles their original application?
    A fully developed plan that meets a need is the CORNERSTONE of the PC-2 zoning requirements. This is just a plan they threw on the desk at the last possible moment. They’re getting ‘special treatment’ which may backfire.

  6. 6

    Bob Sorrentino

    Thomas, major modifications to applications are covered in the code, 27-1544(c). Basically it says that the cycle must be reset as if it was a new application. But goes on to say,

    ” However, such amended application shall not be a new application for any other purposes. An amendment to an application shall not change the original filing date of that application. An amended application shall not require a new application fee.”

    So it appears to me that the city is going by the book here.

  7. 7

    Thomas Porter

    Bob, appreciate it & you’re right about that language… IF, it was a major modification.
    It goes BEYOND the determinating factors of a major modification. It includes new property. Read 27-1544 (b) above that paragraph, there’s no provision for adding property.
    It should be a new submission ‘by the book’.

Comments are closed.