PC 051607 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Pearce understood that some of the neighbors had indicated a desire to continue both Item 6.a. and Item 6.b. She believed the correct procedure in this instance would have been to have a discussion of the entire Planning Commission and a vote. Given the neighbors’ requests, she believed that a unilateral decision by one Commissioner to continue these items violates the spirit under which the special meetings were decided to be held. Commissioner Narum concurred with Commissioner Pearce’s statement. Chairperson Fox appreciated the point made by Commissioner Pearce and noted that both Mr. Brozosky and Mr. Dunkley were not able to attend the meeting for their respective items. She believed that if the hearing had been held, they would not have been able to represent their interests in these proposals. She noted that the Commissioner’s Handbook cited the ability for a single Commissioner to continue an item one time and indicated that she made that request for this one time. She noted that if the Planning Commission would like to recommend to the City Council that that capability be removed from any one Commissioner, she would be happy to discuss it under Matters Initiated by Commission Members. Commissioner Blank believed that there were always two sides to the issue and that he had received an email regarding PUD-05-02M stating that one of the participants had flown in for this hearing. While he was sensitive to the fact that not all the parties could be together, he was disappointed that the Commission scheduled a special meeting, and it appeared that the only item that would be addressed would be a Consent Calendar item. He understood that the Oak Grove item for the next meeting had been postponed and hoped that would enable the items continued from this meeting to be heard then. Ms. Decker noted that if the Planning Commission were to open the public hearing and take testimony, that item could be continued to the next date. If the public hearing were not opened, it would have to be renoticed with a ten-day noticing period and moved to May 30, 2007 instead of May 23, 2007. Commissioner Narum would like to hear the public testimony and noted that the Commissioners had agreed to commit to a series of special meetings to reduce the backlog. Commissioner Pearce would like to open the public hearing and continue the balance of the item to the next meeting. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Fox regarding whether a report by staff would be required, Ms. Decker replied that it was not required. A discussion of the procedural details of testimony, noticing, and courtesy mailing ensued. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 16, 2007 Page 3 of 8