Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2012 02 09

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 8, 2011 Page 3 of 13 accommodation would satisfy the requirements of the federal Fair Housing Act with fewer impactson adjacent neighborhoods. The decision of the City Manager shall be accompanied by written findings of act as to the applicability of the Fair Housing Act, the need for reasonable accommodations, and the authority for any reasonable accommodations approved. The decision of the City Manager shall be final. Russ stated the Planning Commissionhad requested a continuance to further discuss the topic with the City Attorney and to provide additional information regarding the following three(3) areas of interest. 1)Is the public process being circumvented through this action? 2)What are some concerns the planning commission should be aware of in balancing public process, reasonable accommodations, and privacy rights? 3)Are there alternatives to the City Manager’s decision being final? Could there be an appeal process? Russ stated City Attorney Light is present to answer the Planning Commission questions. Lipton thanked Russ for a good summary. Russ stated that based on the outcome of the discussion with Light and the Planning Commission then staff will have a recommendation regardingResolution No. 27, Series 2011. Light discussed and reviewed the present Fair Housing Actand the fact ithas not been amended since 1977. He also stated the 1988 Federal Fair Housing Act Amendment included the language as review by Russ. He continued with a discussion of the following points / topics: 1)Light discussed other areas of Administrative approval, like a PUD. 2)The change relates only to housing. 3)An appeal process would be through the District Court. 4)More process could be added which would require a longer time before the applicant has an answer. 5)Some process could be discriminatoryagainst the individualsinvolved in the case. 6)Some physical conditions could not be includedin the written report because of the privacy rights of the applicant.’ Note: Russell arrived at 6:50 PM. O’Connell asked why the LMC needs to be updated now. Light briefly described a situation brought to the attention of the Planning Department regarding an occupancy number of a residence which is currently over the limit. He stated staff needs a mechanism to deal with similar situations without having to go through a full public hearing review. Sheets discussed with Light the phrase “City Manager final approval” and the word “minor” and would an appeal follow if the applicant did not agree with the decision of the City Manager.