He spent much of the time at the Planning Commission meeting attempting to refute comments that had been made at a previous public hearing and in letters to the city. The proposal is part of major changes to the city’s Comprehensive Plan and zoning regulations that would, in essence, hand off land use application requests currently handled by the Planning Commission and City Council.
This is a synthesis of Larsen’s comments at last week’s Planning Commission meeting.
Comments we have heard to date regarding Code Changes
New change under Title 19 gives the Director the sole responsibility for administering and/or interpreting AMC Titles 13, 15, 16, 17, and 18.
- This is not a new change in fact I currently do this under the current code. It is now easy to understand and you can find it in one location.
Director gives himself authority to approve some issues without any notice (19.50.010).
- This is not a new change, in fact we currently do this under our current code requirements. Staff did add one to the list – Extension of time for approval
The new change to Section 17.06.195 – definition to Conditional Use Permit would radically alter the CUP process.
- Not true – The definition does not give any authority or change any of the current processes.
Director would have the authority to decide a wide-range of Conditional Use Permits.
- Staff is proposing the option of the Planning Commission considering allow for more administrative CUP vs requiring a public hearing on every single CUP. Staff would make the decision and the decision would be appealable to where the Planning Commission feels it appropriate.
The old code requirement that a CUP must be a use classified in the relevant zone and that is also met the eight criteria in Section 17.10.100 is eliminated.
- Not true – This is still required – the only change is that we added a new definition of CUP and took out the procedures that were in the old definition.
There is a notion that the new definition would theoretically allow something permitted in an Industrial or commercial zone to be built in a residential zone.
- Not true – Our current and future code clearly outlines those uses that are allowed to be considered as CUP. The above scenario is not possible.
Appeals of the directors decision would be to the Hearing Examiner and Section 19.50.090.H.(1) would allow for the HE to show bias in favor of the Directors decision.
- Criteria. The Examiner may grant the appeal or grant the appeal with modifications if the appellant has carried the burden of proof and the Examiner finds the decision of the Director is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. In all other cases, the appeal shall be denied. The Examiner shall accord substantial weight to the decision of the Director and SEPA Responsible Official.
Similar issue with Section 19.50.100.K.(1) appeals of Hearing Examiner quasi-judicial decisions appeals heard by Council.
- Criteria. The City Council may grant the appeal or grant the appeal with modifications if the appellant has carried the burden of proof and the City Council finds the decision of the Hearing Examiner is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. In all other cases, the appeal shall be denied. The City Council shall accord substantial weight to the decision of the Hearing Examiner.
Tax payers are being asked to pay for the Hearing Examiner.
- Not True – If the HE is approved by the Council, staff would recommend that the applicant pay for the cost to utilize the HE.
The public will not have the opportunity to be heard by the Hearing Examiner on quasi-judicial matters.
- Not True – The HE is required to hold a public hearings as we do with the Planning Commission and also accept written comments same as PC.
No project under the current system can ever be appeal to the Courts because we can appeal to the City Council.
- Not True – If some does not like the final decision of the City Council they can appeal to Superior Court.