02/24/2003 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 2003 APROVED • 1 City Planner Smyser advised that on page 2-17 is the Administrative Permit section. He stated this 2 was already there for cell phone towers and radio towers, but the new language incorporates the 3 amendments staff has been dealing with into one document. He indicated they did not change 4 anything, just cleaned up the citations so it will be easier for Staff to work with it. 5 6 City Planner Smyser reiterated that they are proposing that instead of site and building plans being 7 reviewed by the various boards, Planning and Zoning and City Council, they would be administrative, 8 to reduce the cost for applicants and the City. He indicated the reasoning for this change is that if the 9 ordinance reflects what the City Council wants, then a plan should pass or fail on that criteria. If a 10 variance is needed, it would still go through the process, or, if they are requesting a CUP, it would go 11 through Planning and Zoning and the City Council. He stated that in addition they have added 12 specific submittal requirements, as the previous ordinance did not provide a complete list. 13 14 City Planner Smyser stated that on page 2-30 the LOS and traffic requirements for site plans will be 15 pasted in based on the previous discussion, so CUP and site plans would have the same subdivision 16 requirements. He asked if the City Council was comfortable with changing site plans to 17 administrative review. 18 19 Councilmember O'Donnell indicated that based on the work session discussion, he assumes it would 20 include a clear definition of the appeal process on the response with approval or denial. City Planner 21 Smyser indicated that was correct, that applicants would get a letter, as talked about with minor • 22 subdivision requests. 23 24 Councilmember O'Donnell reiterated that his point is that anytime there is an administrative process, 25 and a denial takes place, there should be clear communication to the applicant that includes the appeal 26 process. City Planner Smyser agreed, indicating page 2-29 says the Community Development 27 Department will notify the applicant of the decision, and that notification will include the appeal 28 process. 29 30 Councilmember Reinert clarified they would also update the City Council, suggesting that the same 31 language from minor subdivisions be used to avoid another lengthy discussion. 32 33 Councilmember Carlson noted that on page 2-22 it says `Except in the case of minor projects, all site 34 and building plans shall require review from the Community Development Department'. She asked if 35 that were true. City Planner Smyser clarified that the wording needed to be revised if going to an 36 administrative review process. 37 38 Councilmember Carlson stated that it is her understanding that there is normally notification to 39 surrounding property owners, with a public hearing at the Planning and Zoning Board, with 40 recommendations that normally occur as a result of that public hearing. She is concerned that this is 41 making it a non-public process. City Planner Smyser indicated they currently do not notify the public 42 for site or building plan review unless it is a CUP or rezoning, which would remain the same process I43 as always. He stated the CUP, rezoning and preliminary plat public hearings are required by law, and 44 the City could not change them if they wanted to, but the site plan is not public. He asked if the City 45 Council is comfortable with this change. 19