09/22/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

P. Consideration of Role of Hearings Officer for Zoning Code Amendments In order to determine more accurately the wishes of the Council relating to the role of the hearings officer for zoning code amendments, a questionnaire technique was used. Mr. Saul said the questionnaire completed by Council members indicated e the following: If zone changes were transferred to a hearings official, the Council would still like to retain its role in terms of consideration of appeals. Council would like to retain some form of review, at least of zone changes that the hearings official approves. There are two options that appear to answer questions raised by Council members: 1. The first would provide that the hearings official would make the final decision with provision for two elements: a. City Council would hear all appeals; and b. Council would review the record of all approvals granted by the hearings official. 2. Another option which could be developed would be for the hearings official to conduct the original hearing, reach a determination and forward it, if approved, to Council for review and any further action. It would seem possible, under existing state legislation, for council to act on the hearings official's recommendation without a formal public hearing. A public hearing would be necessary if there was an appeal or if Council wished to reverse the hearings official's decision. The questionnaire also indicated the City Council is not comfortable with delegating hearings to the Planning Commission with no Council involvement. There has also been recommendation against continuing the triple hearing procedure - Hearings Official, Planning Commission, City Council. One method by which staff thinks Council could benefit from the expertise and advice of e the Planning Commission would be to establish the Planning Commission as an "interested party" who could make direct comment to the Hearings Official on critical matters as part of the hearings process. It could also appeal a decision to the City Council. A different alternative might be that the City Council could solicit advice from the Planning Commission if faced with a difficult question. Mr. Murray asked for a clarification of the term "review". Mr. Saul answered that the state legislature provided at the 1975 session for Council review of hearings official decisions. To do so Council would receive written copy of findings and testimony presented (summary of minutes, etc.). Council could review the decision reached and study the basis upon which it was made. Council could request a public hearing on it if they so desire. It would have to be specified in the ordinance what material would be forwarded to the Council. Comm Mr. Haws expressed concern with how the hearings officer is .selected. He 9/10/75 would favor selection by the City Council personally. File Mr. Bradley suggested a hearings panel - two members from the City Council, two members from the Planning Commission and the Mayor. He does not favor being locked into a system of one person serving. Mr. Bradley suggested continuing the discus~ion to next Wednesday's meeting, when more Council members should be in attendance. Q. Report from Council Activities Committee for the Mall - Mr. Maurie e Jacobs thanked Mr. Hamel and Ms. Shirey for their time and effort in the Corom development of Mall guidelines. The report is an outgrowth of that 9/17/75 committee's efforts, which will serve as criteria for the future. File 9/22/75 - 14 52'~