2008_0324_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

126 role of the Planning Commission to listen to public opinion and base their decision-making on all the 12 7' facts before them,, and available through their research. Commissioner Gottfried opined that it appeared 1 28 the process was working. 1 � 9 Further discussion included ramifications to staff without codified procedures and lack of ability to 1 3o enforce the process. 131 Commissioner Doherty opined that it was a perceived lack of trust,, and a text amendment was not going 132 to alleviate that lack of trust. Commissioner Doherty questioned whether the lack of trust originated 133 from the fact that some people disagreed with the vote; and whether the mistrust was of the process, or I 134 was based on several isolated cases (i.e., Twin Lakes; Mueller Property). 135 Commissioner Doherty, as well as Commissioner Gottfried, concurred that they had changed their 136 minds at the bench based on public input; however, noted that there was a substantial lack of public 13 7' input, and at times only a vocal minority. 138 Chair Bakeman observed that it had to do with the spirit of compromise and whether you were in 139 agreement or disagreement with a decision; and that rewriting City Code would not alleviate that 140 situation. Chair Bake man noted that the Commission considered the City as a whole; while people 1,41 looked at their individual neighborhood or a specific project, not the overall impact or result. 142, Chair Brat eman proposed that, rather than considering a text amendment at this time,, that the 143 Commission and staff use 2008 land use cases as a "test" throughout the year to track the development 144 process and how it worked. 145 Further discussion included informing the Planning Commission of the location and date of the open 146 house/informational meetings for projects as outlined in staff report,, Section 5.4; notification area if 14 7, beyond 500'; and logistics and legalities for staff in some suggestions addressed by the White Paper. 148 Chair Brat eman closed the Public Hearing. 149 Mr. Paschke asked that Commissioners reconsider making the process mandatory through codification, 1 5o rather than placing staff in the position of creating policy, with no written guidelines, and subject to 151 inconsistencies among staff, and to provide defined boundaries and requirements. 152, Commissioner Boers ter recognized staffs concerns,, and agreed from the standpoint that if open houses 153 were going to be strongly recommended that they be made a requirement of the land use process; 154 however, questioned how this would address the White Paper and perceived lack of trust and 155 unwillingness to listen to citizen input. Commissioner B Berl gter reiterated his previous comments on the 156 need,, if this is codified,, that the logistics, notice recipients and notification area, criteria for notification, 15 7' and the entire process be defined in detail. 158 Staff and Commissioners further discussed the challenges for staff due to the lack of codification that 159 provides a clear and concise direction for which staff can verify and deliver upon. 160 Mr. Paschke advised that there was no urgency to the ordinance; and suggested that staff utilize 161 tonight's discussion to reframe a draft ordinance proposal for consideration at the March 2008 Planning 162, Commission meeting,, for recommendation to the City Council. 163 Further discussion included concerns about enforcing such ordinance language, and whether it was 164 establishing another potential avenue for project opponents to delay projects; distinguishing between the 165 open house and a formal Public Hearing; merit of the open house at the project's initiation, while 166 recognizing the existing process and further diminishing the perception that when a case came before the 16 7 ' Plannin Commission it was a "done deal-"' eliminating the perception of distrust by providing another 9 1