2014_1110_CCpacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

“encourage” language would not eliminate or require a sign-up sheet, as he interpreted the intent of the City Council discussion to avoid requiring a list of attendees to retain the anonymity of those attending and separating that community or neighborhood event from becoming a city-sponsored or mandated meeting that would be accommodated at the public hearing level before the Planning Commission or City Council. Member Boguszewski recognized the interest of some attending to simply attend and not provide a record of their names/addresses; however, in an effort not to weaken the process, he opined it was incumbent upon the holder of the open house to provide a sign- up sheet, while allowing those attending to choose to sign-in or not to do so depending on their preference. Under that scenario, Mr. Paschke advised that he would then include language that a sign-in sheet was “required” to be provided by the developer. Member Boguszewski opined that would be fine as long as an attendee was not required to sign up, but that a sign-up sheet be provided. Member Daire advised that he had no issues with the wording of Items B, C, or E, opining that they made the process more explicit. However, Member Daire advised that he agreed with Member Boguszewski that the developer should be “required” to have a sign-in sheet available, but not “requiring” those attending to sign in. Specific to the additional language requested by the Community Development Department (lines 60- 62), Member Daire opined that it from his perspective it represented an extraordinary requirement, noting that the Planning Commission didn’t provide a summary of the public hearing to each one attending the meeting; and questioned why it should be mandated for a developer. Member Daire moved to strike that last provision as proposed. Member Cunningham disagreed with Member Daire, opining that the burden of proof should be the greatest for the developer or applicant, including any extra hoops deemed necessary or desired by the City and thus required as part of their approval process. Member Cunningham stated that as long as she had served on the Planning Commission, the biggest concern heard from citizens is that more citizen involvement be provided for and that advocacy for those voices be provided. Member Cunningham opined that she found this to be a minimum request of a developer; and respectfully disagreed with Member Daire. Mr. Lloyd noted that anyone attending any meetings of any kind always had the liberty to summarize those meetings; and suggested that Item E (Summary) could be relocated to Item D (Invitations) as a separate paragraph as noted by including the language of lines 34-37 of the invitation, alerting those invited and/or attending that a written summary will be sent to those requesting it as long as they provided their name and address; as well as opening up that opportunity to those attending to provide their own summary to staff if they found that the developer’s summary didn’t capture the meeting, along with options for how they could follow-up and provide their comments to staff. Public Comment Gary Grefenberg, 91 Mid Oaks Lane Mr. Grefenberg advised that he was speaking as a representative of the newly-created City Council advisory Community Engagement Commission that had been reviewing ways to involve residents in decisions impacting them. Mr. Grefenberg opined that the report referenced in the staff recommendation provided a step forward. However, in his past attendance at open houses, Mr. Grefenberg opined that the summary report didn’t always fairly represent those residents attending, but on occasion reflected developer