My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
RulesCommunications Highlights 2009 0526
CityHall
>
City Clerk
>
City Council
>
Committees
>
Rules & Communications Committee
>
RulesCommunications Highlights 2009 0526
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/12/2009 10:00:01 AM
Creation date
6/12/2009 10:00:00 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CM City Clerk-City Council
CM City Clerk-City Council - Document Type
Committee Highlights
Document Date (6)
5/26/2009
Retention
PERM
Document Relationships
_CC Agenda 2009 0615
(Reference)
Path:
\City Clerk\City Council\Agenda Packets\2009\Packet 2009 0615
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
30
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Board of Zoning Adjustments Regular Meeting May 7, 2009 <br />EXCERPT RE: BZA PC CONSOLIDATTON <br />Draft Minute No. 2009-09 Page 3 of S <br />• Each body would meet once a month, rather than the larger body meeting twice a <br />month <br />• Limit agenda items <br />• Amend Zoning Code to allow additional Administrative Review in appropriate <br />circumstances, as was heard tonight <br />The two bodies had worked very well for staff and for Council Typically, other cities <br />had just one body, a Planning Commission, as required by the State. <br />Member Daly asked how much this meeting cost, in terms of staff time and other costs. <br />Community Development Director Sims replied that much of the staff time was paid <br />by the applicant. The full-time administrative support member, who had recently retired, <br />had earned about $75K, including benefits. <br />Assistant City Attorney Pio Roda added that the attorneys were paid a monthly retainer <br />and meetings were included in that retainer. <br />Member Sidari asked if one body would handle issues such as Conditional Use Permits, <br />or would some of that review go direct to City Council? <br />Community Development Director Sims stated that the new body would review and <br />decide everything that the BZA now did. <br />Member Gilcrest compared having both bodies meeting one meeting per month with <br />one body meeting twice a month: <br />• Both would accomplish the same goal. Either merging or limiting each body to <br />one meeting per month; <br />• Codes would not have to be changed with both bodies meeting once a month; <br />which would require no staff time, compared to staff time that would be required <br />for a merged Commission <br />• Reduced staff time for evening meetings would be the same with both bodies; <br />• Reducing agenda packets would be equally efficient with both bodies; <br />• Reducing training costs could be done by allocating costs to either body; <br />• No training would be required if the Commission was not reconstituted; <br />• Limiting agenda items and duration of meetings would be the same with both <br />bodies; <br />• Administrative reviews, as allowed by a code amendment, was something that <br />could be accomplished m either scenario; <br />• As suggested by Commissioner Reed, code enforcement appeals could be done <br />during the day during regular staff hours. <br />In his opinion, limiting Commission and BZA meetings to once a month was the more <br />efficient alternative. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.