Laserfiche WebLink
Regular City Council Meeting <br />Monday,June21,2021 <br />Page 10 <br />comment on because there are too many unknowns about it. There is a lot more <br />work to be done. <br />Etten moved, tabling this item until a revised plat is reviewed by staff and brought <br />to the Planning Commission for their review and public hearing and also to the <br />Parks and Recreation Commission, as needed. <br />Mayor Roe indicated because a motion to table does not allow any comment after <br />a second, he thought about how to proceed with this and if there was a motion to <br />table, and if successful, obviously that is the action and the process that is outlined <br />and recommended by staff. Under a motion to table, they would bring a revised <br />plat back to the Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission for <br />their consideration and recommendation. He appreciated the explanation regarding <br />tabling would also allow for a public hearing and other public comment. <br />Mayor Roe explained if a motion to table is unsuccessful, then the Council would <br />proceed to a motion on the plat that is before the Council and the one that was <br />before the Planning Commission with the recommendation to deny. He indicated <br />if the Council were to vote to table this item, it seems to him it would not be appro­ <br />priate to receive public comment on the plat before the Council in addition to the <br />comments that have already been received at the Planning Commission as well as <br />through correspondence with the Planning Commission, staff, and the City Council <br />because the Council would not be taking action on that plat. <br />Councilmember Strahan wanted to clarify that if this is tabled and there is no com­ <br />ment, is there a possibility in the future that it could be a recommendation to deny <br />the next go around. <br />Mayor Roe indicated there was absolutely that possibility. Whatever comes to the <br />Planning Commission at that point for their consideration could be recommended <br />to be accepted or denied by the Planning Commission and then the City Council <br />would have the option to either accept or deny. <br />Councilmember Willmus explained he would be interested to hear from staff their <br />thoughts on perhaps an amended motion to table to a date certain and that date <br />certain being well short of the first one hundred and twenty days. He asked staff <br />what a realistic expectation for the developer to do their engineering work and per­ <br />haps bring back something that is more in line with the City's interpretation of the <br />Code. <br />Mr. Lloyd explained nominally there is an ability to get a proposal to the July 7 th <br />Planning Commission meeting and still meet the public notice requirements, but he <br />did not think that left adequate time for preparing the engineering plans and updat­ <br />ing all of the survey data and time to review it properly by then. Adding to that, <br />the Parks and Recreation Commission does not have a meeting. The Planning