City Council approves revised Subdivision Ordinance
LAKEWOOD – City Council approved a rewrite of the Subdivision Ordinance Monday night, despite a few lingering concerns including elimination of Council from part of the process and whether the revised ordinance complies with the City Charter.
A number of other questions raised by the public were resolved during the lengthy process of compiling the rewrite, which passed 9-2.
Council members Doug Anderson and Vicki Stack voted against the measure.
The new subdivision regulations were presented after a six-month public process, but the project was presented to City Hall staff in 2008.
The revised ordinance is 24 pages long, replacing its 105-page predecessor, said Tim Gelston, Lakewood’s Development Review Manager,
“I think we’ve done a lot toward clarifying it, making it briefer, make it a more useable document,” Gelston told Council.
A number of requirements and references in the previous ordinance, including such things as traffic studies, were removed from Subdivision Ordinance and farmed out to other, associated Development Review documents.
Councilman Ed Peterson said the simplified regulations make it easier and less costly for average property owners to subdivide to accommodate a second home or a mother-in-law apartment.
Peterson said process for those subdivisions should be less rigorous than for larger development-driven projects. The new ordinance, he said, “really simplifies it for those who aren’t going to be spending tens of thousands of dollars to do a subdivision.”
One of the frequent criticisms during public sessions was that the revised ordinance eliminates a provision allowing citizens or subdivision applicants to take appeals of administrative decisions on “minor” subdivisions of fewer than 10 houses all the way to City Council. Instead, the revised ordinance directs appeals to District Court, where it would run up against a battery of City Hall’s lawyers.
Councilwoman Stack questioned that change in the process as well as elimination of City Council’s consideration of appeals of Planning Commission decisions in minor subdivision cases.
“We are eliminating Council from the appeal process,” Stack said. “So we are giving you permission to remove us from the loop.”
Rich Urbanowski, chairman of the Planning Commission, said eliminating Council from the appeals process could prevent frivolous appeals.
“Right now, they can protest the planning director’s decision, they can protest the Planning Commission decision, they can protest Council’s decision all the way to District Court with no particular basis necessarily for that protest except to draw out that process and make it take longer and cost more,” Urbanowski said.
Councilman Anderson questioned how some of the new provisions allowing administrative approval would square with the City Charter’s requirement that the Planning Commission “shall review and make recommendations to the City Council on land use matters including but not limited to zoning, rezoning, platting, annexation and subdivision of land… .”
“The word shall is mandatory,” Anderson said. “Shall is not ‘may’, shall is not ’should’, shall is not pass it on to somebody else if you think it’s OK.”
Anderson suggested the revised subdivision regulations should be sent to voters, who approved the original Charter and must approve any changes to the city’s founding document.
City Attorney Tim Cox said the word “shall” is not in question and that the city long ago decided to allow administrative approval of minor subdivisions. Former City Attorney Roger Noonan approved that policy.
“We read the language of (the Charter) as being broad and not specifically requiring review of every case. It has not been the practice for many years for the Planning Commission to review every subdivision,” Cox said.
When asked by the Edge whether his opinion relies on research into the intent behind the Charter or whether the opinion is based on the Charter’s ambiguous wording, Cox said he did not delve into the record.
”We did not review the record of the minutes of the Charter meetings,” Cox said. “We are not aware of any information in those minutes. We are certainly willing to consider them, but it did not seem to be a productive use of time to go through all of that material in light of the city’s long practice of not requiring Planning Commission review of every case.”
Rich,
At least I can thank you for something. I fixed the typo, adding the word “to”. The proof-reading is appreciated.
I also want to note that the new ordinance, as a whole, is not objectionable. Staff listened to the public and responded with a number of fixes. And I do like the idea of simplified processes, especially when they make it easier for the public.
Otherwise, I remain unconvinced.
And I believe our taxes pay for the City Attorney to compile opinions based on such things as the statutes, case law and legislative intent. That intent can be found in the minutes and tapes, give them a read and a listen.
I have.
- Charley
Note: my final comment here: I consider these issues presented for the consideration of readers.
Charley, there is/was NO requirement there for traffic studies, period. OTHER regulations can and do generate the need for traffic studies…such as project size or location. I can’t tell you WHY the language reads as it does – I had nothing to do with its writing – so I could only speculate, which I choose not to do here.
My clarification was no “trick;” it added info that your article did not clearly present. Your text: “directs appeals District Court” is not only missing a word, like “to,” but it fails to say that the first appeal is to Planning Commission. It is correct that Council no longer is in that particular loop, for minor subdivisions.
Finally, the City Attorney, Council, and Planning Commission apparently are all satisfied with the language of the Charter being consistent with current actions as well as past practices. I would suggest that if you are not, then it is your job to look further, not somebody else’s job. The City Attorney says it is fine, and he is paid to render opinions on such matters. Plus, a reading of the language seems consistent with his opinion.
Goodbye.
Rich
Rich,
If traffic studies were not required in the previous Subdivision Ordinance, why did it include the following reference from the original:
“16-3-7 Streets, Access and Transportation
(4) All public rights-of-way and streets shall meet the minimum specifications of the Engineering Regulations; however, increased rights-of-way and street widths may be required by the City Engineer where a traffic study approved by the City Traffic Engineer determines the public need reasonably necessitates the increased rights-of-way in order to accomplish the public purpose. In addition, the City Engineer shall determine whether the increased rights-of-way are not unduly oppressive upon the property owner. The determination made by the City Engineer may be appealed by the property owner to the Planning Commission for a final decision.”
Does that mean the traffic studies are voluntary? I doubt it. It would help if you knew what you are changing before you change it.
Perhaps it means some applicants must file such a study, but not others? That would be extra work for the same result, and you are the one who complains that citizen appeals too often are designed just to delay the end result and make the process more costly.
Also, in case you didn’t read the Edge article, it clearly states what you are trying to “clarify”. Trying to portray the information about removing Council from part of the process as unclear just muddies the water. Neat trick to try, but it just falls flat.
As for the ambiguous language in the City Charter:
City Hall and its followers prefer to interpret the City Charter without actually referring to the record (the minutes and tapes the Charter Commission compiled to guide future boards, commissions and City Council).
No one checked the record to see if your interpretation is correct. If you can back up your argument with facts and documentation, do so. Otherwise, do your homework and research instead of relying on what you are told by City Hall. The city’s lawyer said he did not do the legwork to back up his opinion and I certainly doubt you did any research on the wording.
Again, Rich, all the Edge and the citizens want is for you folks to refer to the record and documentation before making decisions that effect every citizen of Lakewood.
Do your homework.
- Charley
Charley, there was NOT a requirement in the original ordinance for traffic studies.
Also, just to clarify, the appeal body for a minor subdivision is first the Planning Commission. Then it now goes to District Court, rather than to Council as previously.
Finally, this ordinance IS Planning Commission’s recommendation on land use matters to City Council. The PC DID “review and make recommendations to the City Council on land use matters including but not limited to zoning, rezoning, platting, annexation and subdivision of land… .”