My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Minutes 2020 07 16
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2020 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Minutes 2020 07 16
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/12/2020 10:35:56 AM
Creation date
11/12/2020 10:35:46 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Meeting Date
7/16/2020
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />July 16, 2020 <br />Page 9 of 12 <br /> <br />Ritchie mentions that planning commission could make a recommendation to city <br />council to create a policy that would have a cutoff time, but it would need apply to all <br />boards and commissions in order to have consistency throughout the city. <br /> <br />Hoefner agrees that a cutoff time makes sense because the public usually just has a <br />week between the time the agenda is posted and when the meeting takes place. That is <br />not a lot of time for the public to talk to their neighbors and write to the city. He thinks a <br />same day or a 24 hour cutoff before the meeting makes sense in order to allow the <br />public to optimize their time as much as possible. <br /> <br />Williams asks staff if they have any information on which cities have a cutoff and what <br />time that cutoff is. <br /> <br />Ritchie says she has not looked into it yet, but could research it and provide that <br />information for them at a future meeting. <br /> <br />Moline wonders if it is possible to inform the public that if they get their public comment <br />to us within 24 hours before the meeting, we will have a chance to review it. If it is just a <br />few hours before the meeting though, we would not be able to guarantee that it has <br />been read before the meeting. <br /> <br />Brauneis says that he wants to make sure that they are not making a reactionary <br />decision. In the past, they often had printed hard copy emails because of receiving last <br />minute public comments. He is not opposed to a cutoff time but feels like in the past <br />and currently they have been able to accommodate last minute public comments. <br /> <br />Zuccaro reminds the commissioners that there may be items they get in land use <br />hearings that an applicant might bring additional documents for their application and <br />does not happen until the day before the meeting. It is in the commissioner’s rights to <br />continue the hearing until they have felt they have had the sufficient amount of time to <br />review the additional documents. He mentions that if a cutoff exists for public comment, <br />that cutoff should include any additional documents provide from the applicant that is <br />not in the agenda packet as well. <br /> <br />Howe says that it is important to remember that the public could always choose to <br />speak during the meeting. Just because we have a cutoff for emails does not mean they <br />cannot speak at the time of the hearing. He does not think it is fair to the commissioners <br />to have the responsibility to read written comments only hours before the meeting. <br /> <br />Rice says that he thinks there should be no deadlines. Individuals who want us to read <br />their thoughts should have an understanding that we would need to receive those <br />comments in a timely fashion before the hearing. If someone has a comment, we <br />always include it into the record and that should be continued. If someone really wants <br />to speak on a public matter, they can speak at the hearing. <br /> <br />Williams mentions that she remembers at Superior that there was no deadline for <br />public comment and that new information could be provided at the meeting as well. At <br />some point, they could say that if there were too many changes or those changes were <br />deemed to fundamental to the application, they could continue the hearing.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.