Agenda Packets - 2008/08/25 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

However, the Council recommended that the parameters for an appeal be better defined. It was requested that the Committee discuss the appeal process at their August 18, 2008 Committee Meeting and provide the Council with defined parameters for what constitutes a reasonable appeal. Staff prepared information regarding a draft list of appeal parameters to be discussed and considered by the Committee at the August 18, 2008 Committee meeting. SIP Appeal Parameters Staff developed a list appeal parameters to identify objective and logical parameters for what constitutes a reasonable SIP appeal at the direction of the Council. To inform the discussion about what constitutes a reasonable SIP appeal, staff felt it necessary to draw a distinction between two types of parameters: physical parameters and hardship parameters, described as follows: Physical Parameters - Parameters in this category are those physical constraints that would cause the siting of an infiltration swale to be infeasible or difficult in a particular location. The application of physical parameters will initially be performed by staff within the context of the detailed SUIP design process. However, a property owner may feel that staff has overlooked a constraint, or may reach a different conclusion on a physical constraint than staff. Therefore, it is possible that a property owner could apply for an appeal based on a physical parameter, but it will be necessary to provide sufficient technical evidence supporting the claim that a given physical constraint applies to a particular location. Due to the technical evidence necessary to support a physical constraint claim, physical parameters will likely not often be used by property owners as a justification for a SIP appeal. Hardship Parameters - Parameters in this category are defined as those constraints that reflect a property owner’s specific concerns regarding how the SIP will impact their property in a way that the property owner finds unacceptable. The Committee reviewed and accepted the appeal parameters prepared by staff, adding their desire that the Council not limit SIP appeals to only those parameters listed, but also consider other unforeseen physical and hardship parameters that were not included on the list prepared by staff. The Committee passed a motion (by a vote of 6-0) to present this list plus their addition to the City Council at the August 25th meeting for consideration. Draft Resolution 7328 has been prepared based on the recommendations of the Committee for consideration by Council. A copy of this draft Resolution is attached.