HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesTAKEN FROM.•P&Z MINUTES 6-15-$~
AGENDA ITEM-NU. 4: Discussion of a draft nrdnsnce requiring 6"
PAZ Minutes 6-15-Sg Page 2
~_ _ _ _,,.
TAKEN FR4I~ P&Z MINUTES '~-6-$9
P&Z Minutes 7'6'$9 Page 2
e
T~~KEI~
ROM P&Z MINUTES 8-3-89
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Di cu ssion of the proposed amendment to he
Zoning Ordinance requirin g concrete curbing and providing
standards fore surfacing.
Mrs. Kee reminded the commissi oners they had considered and recommended approval ~f
an ordinance amendment covering this sub jest. ~n ?--6--89. She stated that since that
time the City Attorney has become aware of some eery recent legislatt,n which has
been determined to affect this ordinance, and she has: recommended incorporation of
the standard details into the ordinance, rather than leaving the acce~~tabilty of
proposed designs to the discretion of the Cit~T Engineer.
~ Mrs. Kee explained that the L~gal department strongly recommends this change due. to
the judioial movement toward ersonal liability of public employees for decisions`
made in the'courae of employm nt, and states that "the e~erciae of discretion
inappropriately or the misint rpretation of an ordinance subjects both the employee
and he Gity to` labilityf'.
Mrs. Kee' stated that she and assistant pity Engineer Smith hatre met .with City
attorney Locke 'about this pro osed change, ` and both feel that 'the c~lange is an
appropriate one to make. She then .read from the ordinance the sentence rahich has
been `affected, and, which now cads, "Variances to the standards may b~ approved b3T
the Planning and Zoning Comm sign on a finding that new innovat~,te techniques meet
aece table en neerin
g g ~ pract ''
es.
~ Mr. Esmond asked far clarific ton as to the mechanics of the ordinance with this
change and I~rs . I~ee explained
L
that i f an apps icant proposes no curbing at all , the.
appeal will be considered by t he Zoning Board'of ~~djustments, and if the applicant
'~ proposes` something other than, the standards incorporated into the ordinance, the P~:Z
', will consider that appeal. M .Smith interjected that staff will make a
recommendation to the P$:Z pr r>to their consideration.
D~scussen followed regarding any other. ordinances or...sectsons of ordlnaroes ~ti~hsch
refer to an "Exhibit A" and wh ich might cause a problem, and it ~,ras painted out that
~~ several :.other ordinances refs to design guidelines, sn the ordinance as apprc:ved by
the P~:Z in Jule:. would not be ncons~.stent with those ot~~ers.
': Mr. Dresser stated that while he really does not have a 'problem Faith this proposed
~ ~han~e,`he pointed out that t e nest agenda item also gives discretion to staff, and
~ added that if everything must have minmum'desi~ standards incorporated into an
.ordinance, he thinks a paper i~htmare will be created.
1 Mr. Esmond stated that he'agr es with Mr. Dresser in that the pity.employs qualified
staff to make technichl decis ons, and they do this every day as part of their job,
and he does not( think the PRZ as a whole is qualified to make those t~~pes of
decisions. 'Mr. Michel agreed adding that the `PAZ has no business in making ~echni:cal
decisions regarding "acceptab a en~ineerin~ ~racticest'.
~~ssistant City :Attorney Banks explained that this; change is being recommended based
on the trend to hold staff pe scones liable for actions,.: and the Legal. department is
simply trying trop protect sta f,: and especially the Engineering staff. Mrs. Sa~~telle
asked if the individual perso could be ~ held persona~.ly liable unless the City is
~~iling to cover that liabil y Mr. Esmond said that practice exists right now. all
ocjer the countr~T.
,~ -