04/25/1977 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Com 4/20/77 Pub Hrg VI. Amendments to Zoning Code; Sections 9.509-9.514 (Planned Unit Development Regulations) Summary of proposed changes distributed to Council. . Manager indicated that these proposed amendments would provide for consideration of diagrammatic and preliminary applications by a Hearings Official, modifying the criteria for diagrammatic and preliminary approval, and making certain other minor modifications. Jim Saul, Planning Department, said the changes were not totally new, are that the present ordinance had been originally adopted in 1968. He said in 1974 the City Council had expressed some concern about the PUD process, with the Planning Commission reviewing the process over a two-year period. That review resulted in a ordi- nance passed in July 1976. Extensive discussion was held regarding the PUD consideration by a Hearings Official as opposed to Planning Commission reviews, In April 1976, the Planning Commission decided it would take a period of time to review and assess the effective- ness of the new procedures to see if there were any problems. He noted that over the nine month period of time, the Planning Commis- sion had ample experience in the new process. Its major opinion resulted in the fact that the new regulations were effective and did not have any major problems; that it would be appropriate and necessary to transfer the review to a Hearings Official at this time. He noted that the proposed changes contained two major elements: 1) delegate authority to a Hearings Official; and 2) a series of minor changes which do not change the substance, but ~. clean up a few items. ~ Mr. Bradley asked if there would be an appeal from the Planning Commission to the City Council to which Mr. Saul replied no, it would stop at the Planning Commission level and the next level would be in the courts. Mr. Delay questioned the split vote, wondering how much discussion on issues and how much discussion on the work load of the Planning Commission were in- volved. Mr. Saul reported that the central point of division was not procedural but philosophical, regarding whether it was an appropriate role of the Planning Commission to be the initial hearing body or for that to be the Hearings Official. Mr. Obie noted he would have a difficult time supporting the changes in the ordinance, saying he felt the public should have an ultimate recourse to an elected body. He also felt there was a judgmental decision involved in granting the PUDs and he would like time to study the process. He said he felt the public deserved to be judged by its peers, and they deserved the right of ultimate appeal to an elected official. He noted appreciation for Section 9.510 in regard to the off-site impact. Mr. Bradley wondered if one way to bring both philosophies into play would be to place the hearing with the Zoning Board of Appeals with appeal to the City Council, or have a similar lay citizen group as the review body for PUDs. Mr. Saul expressed the opinion that the Zoning Board of Appeals idea was an extrem1y poor one. He said one critical area of concern becomes a question of who con- siders the appeal from its decision. He said if the City Council wanted to designate itself as an appeal body that it certainly had the right to do so. He noted the Planning Commission had far . 35/ 4/25/77 - 34