2014-11-05_PC_Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes –Wednesday, October 8, 2014 Page 6 becoming a city-sponsored or mandated meeting that would be accommodated at the 247 public hearing level before the Planning Commission or City Council. 248 Member Boguszewski recognized the interest of some attending to simply attend and not 249 provide a record of their names/addresses; however, in an effort not to weaken the 250 process, he opined it was incumbent upon the holder of the open house to provide a 251 sign-up sheet, while allowing those attending to choose to sign-in or not to do so 252 depending on their preference. 253 Under that scenario, Mr. Paschke advised that he would then include language that a 254 sign-in sheet was “required” to be provided by the developer. 255 Member Boguszewski opined that would be fine as long as an attendee was not required 256 to sign up, but that a sign-up sheet be provided. 257 Member Daire advised that he had no issues with the wording of Items B, C, or E, opining 258 that they made the process more explicit.However, Member Daire advised that he 259 agreed with Member Boguszewski that the developer should be “required” to have a sign- 260 in sheet available, but not “requiring” those attending to sign in.Specific to the additional 261 language requested by the Community Development Department (lines 60-62), Member 262 Daire opined that it from his perspective it represented an extraordinary requirement, 263 noting that the Planning Commission didn’t provide a summary of the public hearing to 264 each one attending the meeting;and questioned why it should be mandated for a 265 developer.Member Daire moved to strike that last provision as proposed. 266 Member Cunningham disagreed with Member Daire, opining that the burden of proof 267 should be the greatest for the developer or applicant, including any extra hoops deemed 268 necessary or desired by the City and thus required as part of their approval process. 269 Member Cunningham stated that as long as she had served on the Planning 270 Commission, the biggest concern heard from citizens is that more citizen involvement be 271 provided for and that advocacy for those voicesbe provided. Member Cunningham 272 opined that she found this to be a minimum request of a developer; and respectfully 273 disagreed with Member Daire. 274 Mr. Lloyd noted that anyone attending anymeetings of any kind always had the liberty to 275 summarize those meetings; and suggested that Item E (Summary) could be relocated to 276 Item D (Invitations) as a separate paragraph as noted by including the language of lines 277 34-37 of the invitation, alerting those invited and/or attending that a written summary will 278 be sent to those requesting it as long as they provided their name and address; as well 279 as opening up that opportunity to those attending to provide their own summary to staff if 280 they found that thedeveloper’s summary didn’t capture the meeting, along with options 281 for how they could follow-up and provide their comments to staff. 282 Public Comment 283 Gary Grefenberg, 91 Mid Oaks Lane 284 Mr. Grefenberg advised that he was speaking as a representative of the newly-created 285 City Council advisory Community Engagement Commission that had been reviewing 286 ways to involve residents in decisions impacting them.Mr. Grefenberg opined that the 287 report referenced in the staff recommendation provided a step forward.However, in his 288 past attendance at open houses, Mr. Grefenberg opined that the summary report didn’t 289 always fairly represent those residents attending, but on occasion reflected developer 290 prejudices and had the potential for significant conflicts of interest if that summary report 291 was the sole responsibility of the developer.Mr. Grefenberg further opined that the 292 proposed mailing to all attending and clarifying that any resident attending could submit 293 their own report was based on recommendations of the Community Engagement 294 Commission to ensure resident involvement in decision-making. 295 Mr. Grefenberg provided as a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof, 296 a comparison of the Community Engagement Commission draft proposal, and the 297 Planning Commission staff’s proposal, expressing his appreciation that there was some 298