05/09/1977 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Obie questioned if Mr. Sipe has changed his request from what had been denied by the Planning Commission, if he would be in a position to reapply for an adjusted request. Mr. Saul replied that . the City Code provides for a,new application to be filed one year from the prev i ous deni a 1 unless good cause coul d be shown. He said '.' the Planning Commission would have to determine whether there was good cause. Mr. Obie asked if the Planning Commission could choose to allow an earlier hearing, to which Mr. Saul replied yes. Ms. Smith questioned whether the Council could deal with Mr. Sipe's request, as it seemed to be different from the one that had been presented to the Planning Commission. Mr. Saul replied that the City Council should deal with a request before it, as Mr. Sipe was requesting a zone change on certain Jand. He said the City Council should make a determination based on the information it had or refer the issue back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission. Motion carried unanimously. I-A-IO F. Requested Code amendment (Planned Unit Development), Sections 9.509-9.514 providing for consideration of Hearings Official Manager reported the Code amendment would allow use of a Hearings Official in regard to review of plans for PUDs. He said it would be an amendment to the Zoning Code, and considerable discussion had been held May 4 at the Committee-of-the-Whole meeting with the Planning Commission members present. The proposed amendment had had a great deal of study on the part of both staff and the Planning Commission ~ and had been recommended for action by the Planning Commission by a ~ vote of 4-3. James Bernhard, Planning Commission, reported that in April 1976 the City had adopted revisions to the PUD ordinance with discussion of transferring the PUDs to a Hearings Official. At that time, the Planning Commission felt it would be best to give the new ordinance a nine-month trial period, which ended in March. Also, the Planning Commission approved that if the transfer to a Hearings Official was confirmed by Council, it would request a nine-month trial period, with a publ ic hearing to be hel d at the end of that time to review the Hearings Official change. He reviewed for Council the reasons for favoring the transfer of PUD hearings to a Hearings Official. It was noted that the ordinance was working very well and the Hearings Official could reduce the workload and cost to the City, staff time could be saved, and more time could be given by the Planning Commis- sion to refinement plan study, ESATS study, and other major items. He noted those on the Planning Commission opposing the change felt the PUD should be in constant review by the Planning Commission, that the major growth plans would affect the neighborhoods and would be better handled by a Planning Commission than a single-person. 5/9/77--8 . 3~3