Laserfiche WebLink
6.1.A. - Page 39 <br />Ms. Thompson requested clarification on what the Council would like to hear as a body. <br />One option is for Council to hear only land use matters or all matters including those <br />from bodies below such as from the Zoning Administrator's decisions. She made a <br />suggestion that if Council if intends to limit the appeals before Council, then have a <br />proviso for the Council to have an appeal opportunity by having two Council members <br />file an appeal with the City Clerk. In regards to the timeline, she noted that seven days <br />is out of out of synch with what other jurisdictions do and increasing it to 15 days would <br />be beneficial in notifying interested parties. <br />One Council Member inquired about the types of appeals that caused this to be before <br />Council. Ms. Thompson said this is really a question of efficiency and having the <br />Council decide what it wants to review. She added this is an opportunity for input. <br />Another Council Member referred to an appeal related to St. Francis and in his opinion <br />he thought this need not be handled by Council. His suggestion was to have the Mayor <br />and Vice Mayor decide if an item should come before Council. Another Council <br />Member noted that items without a precedent or which will set policy should have <br />Council as the decision - making body. Another Council Member would agree that the <br />Mayor and Vice Mayor could make that decision, but the Council should be advised of <br />possible items that may be appealed. This Council Member would like to be notified of <br />the items that are to be reviewed by the Mayor and Vice Mayor. <br />Two Council Members agreed with the 15 days timeline to make all timelines uniform. <br />One Council Member would like the matters for appeal to come before the Council and <br />decide if it should be heard by Council or by a lower body. She trusts the current Mayor <br />and Vice Mayor but does not want to speak for future Mayors and Vice Mayors. This <br />Council Member thanked Ms. Thompson for looking at how the City conducts its <br />business. <br />Another Council Member mentioned that in relation to the Planning Commission, he <br />would like to have a better vetting process if Council is going to be relying more on this <br />body for appeal decisions. He would like to have a better selection process of <br />applicants because these are important players. In his view, the 15 -days seem <br />reasonable and he is looking for some better balance for the selection of the Planning <br />Commissioners to make sure this is a solid body. Ms. Thompson suggested that more <br />mundane items be addressed by the Planning Commission and other more relevant <br />items come before the Council. Dr. Bell also noted that the recruitment process for the <br />BCCs (Boards, Commissions and Committees) is being revamped and maybe Council <br />will feel more comfortable with a new process. <br />Another Council Member suggested that two Council Members could bring the matter <br />forward to the Council and this solution allows more flexibility. Ms. Thompson <br />confirmed that the recommendations by staff would first go to the Planning Commission <br />and then come to the City Council for final approval. One Council Member also inquired <br />about the matter of the official newspaper versus adjudicated paper. Ms. Thompson <br />noted that the type of newspaper we really are focusing on is adjudicated newspaper. <br />JOINT CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD October 10, 2011 <br />MEETING MINUTES PAGE 7 <br />