RulesCommunications Highlights 2009 0526

Home

Board of Zoning Adjustments Regular Meeting May 7, 2009 EXCERPT RE: BZA PC CONSOLIDATTON Draft Minute No. 2009-09 Page 3 of S • Each body would meet once a month, rather than the larger body meeting twice a month • Limit agenda items • Amend Zoning Code to allow additional Administrative Review in appropriate circumstances, as was heard tonight The two bodies had worked very well for staff and for Council Typically, other cities had just one body, a Planning Commission, as required by the State. Member Daly asked how much this meeting cost, in terms of staff time and other costs. Community Development Director Sims replied that much of the staff time was paid by the applicant. The full-time administrative support member, who had recently retired, had earned about $75K, including benefits. Assistant City Attorney Pio Roda added that the attorneys were paid a monthly retainer and meetings were included in that retainer. Member Sidari asked if one body would handle issues such as Conditional Use Permits, or would some of that review go direct to City Council? Community Development Director Sims stated that the new body would review and decide everything that the BZA now did. Member Gilcrest compared having both bodies meeting one meeting per month with one body meeting twice a month: • Both would accomplish the same goal. Either merging or limiting each body to one meeting per month; • Codes would not have to be changed with both bodies meeting once a month; which would require no staff time, compared to staff time that would be required for a merged Commission • Reduced staff time for evening meetings would be the same with both bodies; • Reducing agenda packets would be equally efficient with both bodies; • Reducing training costs could be done by allocating costs to either body; • No training would be required if the Commission was not reconstituted; • Limiting agenda items and duration of meetings would be the same with both bodies; • Administrative reviews, as allowed by a code amendment, was something that could be accomplished m either scenario; • As suggested by Commissioner Reed, code enforcement appeals could be done during the day during regular staff hours. In his opinion, limiting Commission and BZA meetings to once a month was the more efficient alternative.