pm_061004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, October 04, 2006 Page 4 Discussion included timing of the process related to existing code; timing of placement on the City Council docket within ten (10) days of the Variance Board meeting; language of notices; and options for neighbors to use in determining outcomes of Public Hearings. Mr. Paschke noted that, at the direction of the City Attorney, the process was given due diligence, and noted that some responsibility needed to fall on those concerned individuals to contact the City Office to determine the status of cases under consideration, given limited staff resources and time. Further discussion ensued regarding the process; testimony heard at the City Council level; and staff’s time in preparing the reports for the Boards and City Council meetings in addition to additional notice requirements, and lack of adequate time for mailing and/or publishing in accordance with current Code; the Public Hearing process at the Variance Board and/or Planning Commission meetings versus additional and informal public testimony at the City Council level, repetition and/or new comment; and whether to amend Code to delay Council hearing of appeals until a later City Council meeting and impacts to the permit process and construction concerns. Mr. Stark requested clarification as to staff direction from one of the following options: 1) Direct staff to send out notification of appeal before the City Council; 2) Change timing of the process, requiring an ordinance amendment; 3) Change the appeal to the City Council into a Public Hearing, requiring an ordinance amendment; or 4) At a minimum, staff’s recommendation not characterizing the appeal before the City Council as a Public Hearing, but rather a “public meeting at which the City Council may choose to accept additional testimony.” Additional discussion included current language on public notice; creation of an Appeal application and amendment to current Code language; additional administrative costs and staff time based on day-to-day operations and changing workload requirements; need for City Attorney comment and review of proposed modifications related to statutory land use impacts; actual evidence heard by the City Council on appeal and whether it is that of the written record of the Variance Board or if new evidence is to be considered, putting the Variance Board at a disadvantage; and a review of the current Code and recommended revisions having operated under its implementation. Mr. Paschke advised that staff could prepare a draft “Request for Council Action” (RCA) addressing the items identified by staff, the Variance Board, and Planning Commission, and any modifications consistent with tonight’s discussion, for presentation at next month’s meeting, prior to making recommendation to the City Council for their review. Staff was directed to prepare a draft RCA for review by the Variance Board and Planning Commission at their next meeting, prior to forwarding to the City Council for their consideration and discussion at a future City Council Study Session, to provide input on appeal process language and provisions, Public Hearing notice, and whether to allow an applicant to provide supplemental evidence and/or mitigating circumstances, applicable to Variance Board appeals. It was Commission consensus that, if the Ordinance were opened up for discussion and amendment, consideration be given to including language that no new materials could be presented by the applicant on appeal to the City Council, and that only the written record as presented to the Variance Board, be heard by the City Council. Chair Traynor requested that one or two members of the Variance Board arrange to attend that City Council Study Session. Variance Board Chair Bakeman duly noted Chair Traynor’s