04/25/1977 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- greater background on these issues and was more familiar with the work involved. The staff is concerned with the three-tiered approach to the process of having a Hearings Official to the Planning Commission and then to the Council, being costly in time and waste of money. Mr. Williams noted his feeling that the general function of appro- val of PUDs is an administrative decision, and if so it should not be a judgmental decision. He said there are standards set up for PUD approval, and the decision of approving or not approving should be made by those standards and should not be a judgmental one. Manager noted that was the staff's position. Mr. Obie questioned whether the laws were definitive enough to not make a judgmental decision on offsite impact. e Gary Chenkin, Planning Department, noted that the use of a Hearings Official in the conditional use permit system had been very success- ful. He said the criteria are set forth very clearly, the Hearings Official documents his findings very articulately, and there is an appeal process. Mr. Saul noted there are several reasons why the Hearings Official process has responded with greater information to the public in regard to a particular decision made. He said the Hearings Official allows a greater degree of interchange between the opponents, which would be difficult on the City Council level; and the Hearings Official is able to enter into a dialogue with direct questions easier than the City Council. Most important, the Hearings Official is required to articulate his reasons why a particular decision was reached. Response from the public in regard to using a Hearings Official had been very acceptable because the public knows why a particular decision was made. Mr. Obie expressed his concern, again, that the public should have the right to appeal to an elected official. Mr. Bradley noted that he supported Mr. Obie in regard to the decision perhaps being a judgmental one. He said perhaps the Council could articulate its reasons for making decisions, and felt the government should be more open with more citizen participation and he could not support the change just for expediency. Mr. Delay noted he preferred to carry the discussion over to another meeting and receive a more complete packet of information from the Planning Department. Ms. Smith noted that it might be helpful to have Mr. Jim Bernhard, Planning Commission, to answer questions. . It was the consensus of the Council that the Planning Commission should be represented at the May 4 meeting to answer questions regarding this matter. . Mr. Obie suggested that perhaps a questionnaire could be sent to those who had gone through the Hearings Official processes, what their response was to that process. Mr. Williams indicated that, having just gone through the process with very strong feelings, he would be reluctant to fill out such a questionnaire in the event that he would have to appear before the Hearings Official again in the future. 352 4/25/77 - 35