02/10/2003 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 10, 2003 APPROVED 1 2 City Planner Smyser indicated the process to approve minor subdivisions is only changing at the very 3 end where staff reviews to see if it meets all the requirements. This is set up to allow minor 4 subdivisions to be handled by staff unless a variance is required. He stated we are only saying that 5 Staff would do what a resolution would do if it went before the City Council. 6 7 Councilmember Carlson asked again, if there are only three a year, why would we need staff to 8 handle instead of going through Planning and Zoning where more information can be gathered, and 9 then go on to the City Council as we do now. 10 11 City Planner Smyser stated this was a larger issue. He indicated this recommendation was made to 12 save time and money for the applicant and the City, but if Council wants to return this to Staff and 13 say they do not want Staff approving, applicants need to go through the process, Staff will change it. 14 15 Councilmember Carlson indicated she can see the cost savings benefit for the applicant, but it seems 16 often Staff will deny, and she is concerned about taking away the process for those who want to go to 17 the Planning and Zoning Board to make their case. She asked if it was possible to allow it to go 18 through the process of going to Planning and Zoning only if denied. 19 20 City Planner Smyser indicated the ordinance gives instructions for appealing. 21 22 Councilmember Carlson stated that was different. She is thinking something more along the lines of 23 what the process is now, where Staff says their recommendation is not to approve, but it can go to the di24 Planning and Zoning Board and City Council. She wants applicants to have the right to go to the 25 Planning and Zoning Board if they want. She indicated it is the `squeaky wheel' theory, where some 26 people will just accept the denial rather than appeal. 27 28 Councilmember Reinert stated when this came up before, the recommendation from the City Council 29 was that if denied, the applicant would be told they could apply for appeal, and we added the 30 language `Staff would inform the applicant if denial did occur, that City Council would be informed 31 at the next session that a minor subdivision request had come in and was denied so a timely report 32 was received.' He stated these two points should be added to the wording. 33 34 Councilmember Carlson indicated one point was added. The wording changed from 'periodic' to 'as 35 they occur'. She thinks what Councilmember Reinert is saying is good, but perhaps applicants should 36 be told the City Council would be informed at their next session and the applicant was invited to 37 attend. 38 39 City Planner Smyser indicated it comes down to the City Council. If you want all minor subdivisions 40 to come before the City Council, that is what Staff will do. If you want them handled 41 administratively, that is what Staff will do. Rather than figure something in between, he feels it 42 should be one way or the other. He stated Staff thought it would be more efficient to handle 43 administratively, but if Council is concerned, they should table the ordinance and let staff rewrite it 44 and bring it back. 45 46 Mayor Bergeson stated he did not understand why item a. can't stay as it is, and if the case is clear •47 cut, be handled administratively, but if not clear cut, go to a different process. If it is clear all 48 requirements are met, he cannot see why staff cannot approve. 16