2014_09_03_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, September 3, 2014 Page 3 At the request of Member Cunningham, Mr. Lloyd reviewed the current 500’ notification 100 requirements for planning cases and formal public hearing processes versus the current 101 administrative version requiring notice of contiguous property owners, as part of the 102 minor variance administrative process from zoning code for minor encroachments of 103 driveways and/or buildings into side yard setback areas or fence deviations. Mr. Lloyd 104 suggested it may be of benefit to apply a greater notification area for administrative 105 review and approvals/denials, whether the standard 500’ or another variation, which was 106 a valid question. Mr. Lloyd noted that a minor subdivision is by design less impactful than 107 a plat, and a smaller notification area may be in order; however, picking any new 108 notification radius could be considered beyond basing it on a lower profile process versus 109 a formal public hearing, while still holding the hearing before staff allowing public 110 comment and voicing any concerns. Mr. Lloyd noted that it would still be a legal notice, 111 but yet less formal than a public hearing. 112 Member Cunningham expressed her concern that the revised language provide notice to 113 neighbors the same as now to ensure they would still receive notice of anything 114 happening in their neighborhood, and have the opportunity to voice their concerns. 115 Mr. Lloyd cautioned that the only difference would be in the “contiguous” language for 116 administrative hearings versus the 500’ radius notification area for formal public hearings; 117 reiterating that the language could be changed to provide that same notification area as 118 other situations, if so desired. 119 Member Cunningham noted that the Commission continually heard from neighbors that 120 they were unaware of what was happening until it was too late; and expressed her 121 concern in diminishing any notice; opining that she would be comfortable with the 122 standard 500’ radius for notification. 123 Chair Gisselquist and Member Boguszewski supported standardizing notice requirements 124 to be consistent. 125 By consensus, members supported standardizing the administrative hearing notice 126 requirements on page 4, line 134 for notification and hearing on Minor Subdivision 127 proposals from “contiguous” property owners to property owners within 500’. 128 At the suggestion of Members Daire and Murphy, and by consensus, members supported 129 Type 2 Subdivision changing language on page 4 (Attachment A) lines 121-122 for 130 Procedures – Minor Subdivisions to read: “The owner(s) of property involved in a 131 \[Type 2 Correction, Recombination, or Common Wall\] \[Minor\] Subdivision proposal 132 shall file an…” 133 At the request of Member Daire, Mr. Lloyd and Mr. Paschke reviewed the make-up of the 134 Development Review Committee (DRC) consisting of a representative of each city 135 department dealing with various aspects of development and land use. Member Daire 136 questioned how this new procedure would change those things coming to the Planning 137 Commission and those proposed for administrative review. Member Daire questioned if 138 the DRC was the appropriate body or proper venue to hold a defacto public hearing. 139 Discussion ensued regarding current process for administrative review by the DRC of 140 minor variances (e.g. setback permits) in place since 1999 or the early 2000’s, and 141 supported by the City Attorney for that less complex process versus a formal hearing; 142 public access and notice for those meetings and their ability to participate or ask 143 questions; and approval or denial of applications at the administrative level, with the 144 Community Development Director being the ultimate authority in those circumstances. 145 Member Daire expressed his concern not with whether or not this administrative review 146 and public hearing was an established precedent, but whether or not it was legal in this 147 instance for the DRC to serve for a defacto public hearing or whether the DRC was the 148 appropriate venue for such a hearing. Member Daire advised that in his past work as a 149 planner, he had sought other City Attorneys the same question, and they have advised 150 that it depended on how the question was asked. However, Member Daire opined that it 151