CCMin 2011-10-10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Ms. Thompson requested clarification on what the Council would like to hear as a body. One option is for Council to hear only land use matters or all matters including those from bodies below such as from the Zoning Administrator's decisions. She made a suggestion that if Council if intends to limit the appeals before Council, then have a proviso for the Council to have an appeal opportunity by having two Council members file an appeal with the City Clerk. In regards to the timeline, she noted that seven days is out of out of synch with what other jurisdictions do and increasing it to 15 days would be beneficial in notifying interested parties. One Council Member inquired about the types of appeals that caused this to be before Council. Ms. Thompson said this is really a question of efficiency and having the Council decide what it wants to review. She added this is an opportunity for input. Another Council Member referred to an appeal related to St. Francis and in his opinion he thought this need not be handled by Council. His suggestion was to have the Mayor and Vice Mayor decide if an item should come before Council. Another Council Member noted that items without a precedent or which will set policy should have Council as the decision-making body. Another Council Member would agree that the Mayor and Vice Mayor could make that decision, but the Council should be advised of possible items that may be appealed. This Council Member would like to be notified of the items that are to be reviewed by the Mayor and Vice Mayor. Two Council Members agreed with the 15 days timeline to make all timelines uniform. One Council Member would like the matters for appeal to come before the Council and decide if it should be heard by Council or by a lower body. She trusts the current Mayor and Vice Mayor but does not want to speak for future Mayors and Vice Mayors. This Council Member thanked Ms. Thompson for looking at how the City conducts its business. Another Council Member mentioned that in relation to the Planning Commission, he would like to have a better vetting process if Council is going to be relying more on this body for appeal decisions. He would like to have a better selection process of applicants because these are important players. In his view, the 15-days seem reasonable and he is looking for some better balance for the selection of the Planning Commissioners to make sure this is a solid body. Ms. Thompson suggested that more mundane items be addressed by the Planning Commission and other more relevant items come before the Council. Dr. Bell also noted that the recruitment process for the BCCs (Boards, Commissions and Committees) is being revamped and maybe Council will feel more comfortable with a new process. Another Council Member suggested that two Council Members could bring the matter forward to the Council and this solution allows more flexibility. Ms. Thompson confirmed that the recommendations by staff would first go to the Planning Commission and then come to the City Council for final approval. One Council Member also inquired about the matter of the official newspaper versus adjudicated paper. Ms. Thompson noted that the type of newspaper we really are focusing on is adjudicated newspaper. JOINT CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD October 10, 2011 MEETING MINUTES PAGE 7 MINUTE BOOK NO. 63 Page No. 412