2014-11-05_PC_Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes –Wednesday, October 8, 2014 Page 7 similarity in the two.Mr. Grefenberg noted the distinction that the Community 299 Engagement Commission was recommending including all those participating, while 300 recognizing that no one would be forced to sign in. 301 However, with staff’s recommendation (line 61), indicating that the applicant was 302 responsible for mailing a copy to attendees, and that the sign-in list would be available, 303 Mr. Grefenberg opined that in order to enforce it there needed to be a “required” mailing 304 of the summary to those attending; and that the sign-in list be kept and submitted with the 305 open house summary based on the intent of the Community Engagement Commission. 306 Therefore, Mr. Grefenberg opined that it seemed appropriateto strike the staff language 307 “It is encouraged…”Mr. Grefenberg opined that he was especially pleased to see (on line 308 61) that the applicant was responsible for mailing a copy of the meeting summary, since 309 in the complicated zoning process where everyone didn’t necessarily understand the 310 elements, it provided more credibility and provide everyone with the opportunity to have 311 their comments and/or concerns recorded. 312 Even though it may no longer be necessary with the addition of line 61 language as 313 proposed,Mr. Grefenberg stated that the Community Engagement Commission strongly 314 suggested planning staff prepare a summary of the of the open house, as a neutral third 315 party.Mr. Grefenberg opined that this would avoid any potential conflict of interest and 316 respect the accuracy and record of the comments of attendees.Mr. Grefenberg further 317 opined that it was critical that residents be allowed to review what is purported to be a 318 summary of the meeting in case there were areas of disagreement. 319 Member Boguszewski suggested that, if that portion of the language was passed, 320 perhaps an additional clause be added to ensure all summaries of the open house be 321 submitted “…no later than submission of the application itself” to provide sufficient review 322 time for accuracy and to allow residents to attend subsequent formal public hearings to 323 express their differing opinions. 324 Mr. Paschke advised that the developer was already required to hold the open house and 325 submit a written summary prior to their formal submission of the application. 326 Member Boguszewski clarified that he was speaking specifically to the mailing of the 327 summary (as noted on line 61), note the open house itself, which was not clearly 328 identified in the proposed language. 329 Mr. Grefenberg brought to the Commission’s attention the recommendation of the 330 Community Engagement Commission that a joint task force of their members and those 331 of the Planning Commission, plus at-large members, should be formed to assess 332 notification recommendations and prepare a joint plan by both commissions for City 333 Council approval, with staff assistance from the Planning Department.Mr. Grefenberg 334 clarified that the intent was ensure transparent zoning recommendations. 335 Chair Gisselquist opined that such an initiative made sense; with the consensus of those 336 present in agreement. 337 Member Boguszewski suggested that Mr. Grefenberg advised that Community 338 Engagement Commission of the willingness of the Planning Commission to serve on 339 such a joint task force. 340 Mr. Grefenberg noted the interest being expressed by the community (on NextDoor.com) 341 with respect to the need for clarity and cogency of thought, and recognized with respect 342 the experience and integrity of the Planning Commissioners as resident volunteers. 343 Member Boguszewski further suggested that Mr. Grefenberg express to the Community 344 Engagement Commission his recommendation that the Planning Commission be 345 eliminated as a third party provider, expressing concern in placing any additional burden 346 on staff, as well as how they could serve as a neutral party, especially when the 347 perception of some residents is that Planning Department staff are not neutral. 348