Council now has final say in appeals

New law cites process for decisions made by hearing officer, commission

The Yuma City Council will have the final say in the appeals process after it adopted an ordinance making it official.

The new ordinance updates the zoning code related to the appeals process for decisions made by the hearing officer and the Planning and Zoning Commission.

Previously, a citizen unhappy with a decision made by the zoning and floodplain administrators or Minor Variance Committee could make an appeal to the hearing officer. And the decisions of the hearing officer were appealable to the Planning Commission.

However, the zoning code did not spell out the appeals process for decisions made by the commission, causing them to end up in Superior Court.

“This gives council the final decision-making authority, whereas before, the way the ordinance was structured, the final decision was either with the hearing officer or the Planning and Zoning Commission,” City Attorney Richard Files explained.

“(The newly adopted ordinance) moves it up a layer to the City Council before anyone can exhaust their administrative remedies and go into court. What it does is empower council to make a final decision,” he added.

No members of the public asked to address the code change. The council voted 6-0 to adopt the ordinance.

The hearing officer and the commission have the authority to decide variances from typical development standards and land use requests. The commission reviews and makes recommendations on land use applications, such as rezoning requests, subdivision plats and general plan amendments.

The council makes the final decisions on many of the applications. However, in certain cases, such as requests for conditional use permits, the commission makes the final decision.

The commission had previously voted 4-0 to recommend

that the appeals process be changed to make the council the final authority.

The appeals could take place either during a regularly scheduled council meeting or the council could schedule a special meeting to address an appeal.

The council also adopted an ordinance authorizing the annexation of the Premier Storage property located at the northwest corner of 34th Street and Avenue 4E. The property owner, 4E Investments, requested the annexation of the 14.5 acres.

The council also approved the following items on the consent agenda:

• A three-year Microsoft subscription with an estimated expenditure of $620,000 to SHI of Somerset, New Jersey.

• The renewal of annual software subscription with a cost of $147,000 paid to Tyler Technologies of Dallas, Texas.

• The final plat for the Los Agaves Subdivision located at the northeast corner of South 14th Avenue and West 9th Street. The 1.612acre subdivision, located within the Infill Overlay, will be divided into 12 lots, ranging in size from 5,285 square feet to 5,399 square feet. The properties are identified by the addresses 1410, 1422 and 1400 W. 9th St. as well as 820 W. 8th Place.

However, confusion on a requested modification to this item had to be cleared up before it was approved by the council. Mayor Doug Nicholls pointed to a recommendation to modify the final plat by adding another condition. The new condition asked for a six-foot block wall with anti-graffiti coating around the property.

Councilman Chris Morris asked for the reason behind the recommendation. Tim Bourcier, director of planning and neighborhood services, indicated that he was not familiar with the request.

Nicholls then asked if the applicant was aware of the recommended condition. “It’s news to us,” said Kevin Dahl of Dahl, Robins and Associates, which represents Piramide Contractors.

Dahl said that they are already putting in an exterior wall and that it’s not typical for a subdivision to require more walls when the zoning code requires. “We’ve had hundreds and never had this condition put on the plat,” he said.

Councilman Mike Shelton said that he “strongly” felt that those impacted by decisions should know ahead of time and that changes needed to be justified.

Nicholls asked that the motion be rescinded, and the item was delayed for consideration later in the meeting when the confusion could be cleared up.

Later, when discussion returned to the item, City Administrator Phil Rodriguez explained that a council member, who was not identified, submitted the recommended modification. It was put before the council with the belief that it was a request from the entire body, “but if that is not the case, then city staff is perfectly good with the recommendation you have in the packet as it stands,” he said.

Nicholls asked that in the future staff make a distinction between a request from a single council member and cleanup of an agenda item.

The council approved the final plat with a 6-0 vote.