Laserfiche WebLink
168 opportunity for public comment, while creating one more technical requirement for staff to enforce and <br />169 monitor; and reiterating the need to specifically detail the timing and logistics for the open house. <br />1 70 MOTION <br />1 7`1 Member B,akeman moved, seconded by Member Gottfried to ask staff to develop a proposed text <br />72, amendment for Zoning Ordinance Amendment for review at the March 2008 Planning <br />73 Commission meeting; based on tonight's discussion. <br />74 Ayes: 7 <br />75 Nays: 0 <br />76 Motion carried. <br />1 7­7 MARCH 5, 2008 <br />78 Mr. Lloyd briefly summarized the staff report dated March 5, 2008, and the proposed drafting of a <br />79 Zoning ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT. <br />M Discussion included clarifying that a required element of Section 5.2.d for an application was to include <br />�8 a summary of the informational meeting provided to staff for the record; <br />� 82, Chair Bake man closed the Public Hearing, with no one appearing for or against. <br />M Chair Bake man noted the written comment provided by Gary Grefenberg, 91 Mid Oaks Lane, earlier at <br />� 84 tonight's meeting related to this item, attached hereto and made apart thereof- <br />�85 Further discussion included the process followed to create a text amendment with specific code changes <br />M provided to the City Council in a redlined copy of the code sections; and proposed timing for <br />�8 7' informational meetings relative to the 60-day review period and public hearing (Section 5.2.c). <br />M Commissioner Boerigter spoke in support of the proposed text amendment; opining that it made sense, <br />M would provide more public involvement at a minimal cost to the City,, and hopefully negate ongoing <br />m complaints that the public wasn't involved in the process. <br />9,1 MOTION <br />92, Member B,oerigter moved, seconded by Member Gasongo to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of a <br />193 ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT, based on the comments of Sections 4 and <br />� 94 recommendations of Section 5 of the Project Report dated March 5, 20080 <br />195 Chair Bakeman spoke in opposition to the motion; opining that it would not solve the problem at hand; <br />�96 with the City had a previous practice of encouraging developers to hold open houses; and that by <br />� 9 7' codifying the process, it would not stop complaints about a perceived lack of due process <br />M Commissioner Boerigter opined that, even if not solving the problem; it may provide additional <br />m opportunities for public comment, and perceptions that the public didn't have an opportunity for <br />2,00 involvement. <br />2,0 Commissioner Martinson spoke in support of the motion, opining that it provided, by regulation, a fairer <br />2,02, and open process, acknowledging that it would not represent an overall solution. <br />2,03 Commissioner Brakeman expressed her trust in staff making a determination of when it was prudent to <br />204 suggest a developer hold an open house to make the public more aware of a project; but opined that by <br />2,05 creating another legal hurdle, it lengthened the process and created more bureaucracy. <br />2,06 Commissioner Boerigter noted that staff had indicated that they didn't want to be in the position to make <br />2,0 7, a call on when it would or would not be prudent to have additional opportunities for public comment; <br />2,08 and opined that it wasn't fair to them to have to make that determination. <br />