2014_10_08_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, October 8, 2014 Page 9  Item E (Summary), lines 53 – 59: 403 “A written summary of the open house shall be submitted as a necessary 404 component of an application for approval of a proposal requiring a developer 405 open house meeting. The summary shall include a list of potential 406 issues/concerns and any possible mitigations or resolutions for resolving the 407 issue)s) and/or concern(s). Citizens are also encouraged to submit their own 408 summary of the meeting highlighting concerns/issues and any mitigations and 409 resolutions. \[It is encouraged that a list (name and address) of attendees be 410 kept and submitted with the open house summary\].” “A sign-in sheet SHALL 411 be provided on which citizens may, but are not required, to enter their name 412 and address. The sign-in sheet SHALL be submitted by the developer with the 413 open house summary (Member Murphy) 414  Correct typographical error in Line 62 (Member Daire) 415 “addressed” to “addresses” 416  Item E (Summary), lines 61-62, correct to read: 417 “No later than the date of submission of the application, the 418 applicant/developer SHALL be responsible for mailing a copy of the meeting 419 summary to all attendees who provided their names and addresses on the 420 sign-in sheet.” (Members Boguszewski/Daire) 421 Since the person controlling the meeting summary set the stage for how it was 422 presented, Member Boguszewski spoke in support of retaining the language as proposed 423 in the above-referenced language. 424 Specific to lines 61-61 and as he’d raised earlier, Member Daire opined that it added an 425 extraordinary requirement for the developer to mail a summary to those attending the 426 open house, and preliminary to the formal public hearing, when the City was already 427 requiring the extra burden of the developer to hold the open house; and served to be a 428 higher requirement than the City held itself to. Member Daire opined that he found that to 429 be an imbalance, in effect creating a third public hearing; and noted that anyone 430 attending the formal public hearing before the Planning Commission had the ability to 431 make a statement there and have it become part of the public record, typically followed 432 by the City Council holding yet another quasi-public hearing before them when hearing 433 the case. Member Daire recognized the comments of City Planner Paschke in stating the 434 purpose of the open house and additional benefits for it to flag any difficulties before 435 reaching the formal public hearing, allowing the developer and those attending to address 436 and negotiate those issues and subsequently adjust their development plan. Member 437 Daire also recognized that it may be true that a developer determines to proceed as they 438 initially intended regardless of public input; however, he opined that at that point during 439 the public hearing, that attitude would obviously surface. With the formal public hearing 440 established, and now officially requiring an open house, Member Daire opined that in 441 some senses it purports to mimic the intent of the public hearing without the public body 442 there to listen. As noted by Ms. McCormack, Member Daire referenced the minimal 443 resident attendance at one open house; and opined that he agreed with Mr. Grefenberg 444 that summaries be objective when coming forward. Member Daire stated that his chief 445 problem was the proposed requirement was not undesirable, but that it placed an 446 extraordinary burden on the developer, beyond what the City held itself to; and in some 447 cases, if “required” of the developer to send meeting notices and summaries to those 448 attending open houses, and then “required” staff to do the same for the formal public 449 hearing, he was unsure how this ended. 450 Member Cunningham stated that she saw it differently; since on behalf of the Planning 451 Commission, staff already made the meeting record via minutes, available to the public 452 as requested and online, having the option or requirement for a developer to also mail a 453 meeting summary was appropriate, since those were not available to the public on the 454