Laserfiche WebLink
<br />- - - - <br /> , <br />He noted for Council there were a number of other amendments that <br />were included in the original report aimed at improving the review <br />process and staff would like to see those amendments acted upon. He . <br />noted also the Planning Commission had not submitted a formal recom- <br />mendation regarding the question of appeal, saying this had been one <br />of the concerns of Council about the PUD regulations being heard by a <br />hearings official. The question of the appeals procedure was a policy <br />choice in which the City Council could stipulate the appeal to the <br />City Council rather than to the Planning Commission. The Planning <br />Commission was concerned that there not be a two-stage appeal process. <br />In response to a question by Mr. Delay, Mr. Saul said there had been a <br />difference of opinion as the Planning Commission continued to look at <br />the alternatives. However, the majority opinion took the position the <br />best course of action would be for both stages to be heard by a <br />hearings official. The minority position was for the two stages to be <br />sp 1 i t. <br />Mr. Lieuallen asked Mr. Saul to explain in more detail the staff and <br />Commission's objections to splitting the stages. He thou gh t the <br />diagrammatic approval was the essential stage and wondered why the <br />Planning Commission had such strong objections to turning over the <br />preliminary approval stage to a hearings official. Mr. Saul prefaced <br />his remarks by saying he would have to interpret the various Commis- <br />sioners' feelings. He said there had been much discussion at the <br />Planning.Commission level about the idea that the first stage involved <br />subjective decisions and the second stage objective decisions. He <br />thought a better term might be lithe degree to which one is required to e <br />exercise judgment. II He said it was necessary to look at the factors <br />to be assessed at each stage noting street improvements, sewer systems, <br />utilities, and school systems. He said also it was necessary to make <br />a determination that the project is consistent with the City plans and <br />policies. The purpose of the first stage is to try to assess the <br />impact of the development on the community as a whole and the sur- <br />rounding neighborhood. The purpose of the second stage deals more <br />with the actual physical design of the project, siting the architec- <br />tural design. He said judgment would be exercised at both levels. <br />Mr. Lieua11en reviewed his appreciation for the opportunity to deal <br />with the land-use problem regarding the diagrammatic phase in the <br />River1s Edge appeal heard in January. He felt land use was a very <br />important issue and would be more so in the future. He felt that <br />discussion in that particular appeal showed how important the dia- <br />grammatic stage was. However, he would not object to splitting the <br />two stages as long as there would be an appeal to the City Council <br />and could see why staff did not want a two-step appeal process. <br />Mr. Obie expressed the feeling that the citizens should have the <br />access to elected officials regarding land-use matters. Mr. Wi 11 i ams <br />said his concern was that people were making the assumption that <br />elected officials have some decision-making authority. He understood <br />these were quasi-judicial decisions and more a question of whether the <br />applicant was in compliance with City Code. He felt land-use decisions <br />are legalized decisions and belong with a group that has that kind of e <br />legal training, i.e., a Hearings Official. <br /> Minutes 9/7/77--6 <br /> ~&O <br />