Comments on: City Council approves revised Subdivision Ordinance

By: Charley Able

Charley Able — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 23:34:25 +0000

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

By: Rich Urbanowski

Rich Urbanowski — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 21:48:07 +0000

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

By: Charley Able

Charley Able — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:13:41 +0000

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

By: Rich Urbanowski

Rich Urbanowski — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 00:23:02 +0000

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… .”