PC 071107 - Laserfiche WebLink

with respect to the St. Elizabeth Seton application, the packet had not been completed the first time the project came forward; staff then suggested changing the hearing to a workshop item. She had learned at the applicant meeting that parking was planned to be placed along Stoneridge Drive, with which she was not familiar at that time. She contacted the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), who then released advice to another Planning Commissioner in the summer indicating that if mitigation measures were made to a roadway within 500 feet of a residence, a Commissioner must recuse him or herself for the discussion. She noted that the parking as defined by the applicant, but not in the staff report, could have been 500 feet from her house. She found out about that issue two hours before the hearing and had to send the staff report out to have the FPPC clear her to participate in that hearing item. Chairperson Fox noted that in terms of her absence from the St. Elizabeth Seton item, her husband had traveled to New Zealand as her father-in-law was very ill. She was unable to attend the meeting due to those circumstances. She expressed appreciation for Commissioner Olson’s comments and stated that in terms of the Consent Calendar, an email from Brian Arkin had been circulated to some staff members and the City Manager. His recollection of that discussion was that the Consent Calendar items were not intended to include PUDs or PUD modifications and were only supposed to cover CUPs. She noted that she would be able to forward Mr. Arkin’s message. Commissioner Narum noted that Mr. Arkin was no longer on the Commission. Chairperson Fox stated that Mr. Arkin suggested to staff in March 2006 under Matters Initiated by Commission Members that a Consent Calendar be included on a trial basis. At the end of that discussion item, the kinds of items appropriate for the Consent Calendar were delineated. She noted that that discussion took place approximately three weeks before Trish Maas and Mary Roberts were termed out. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Fox regarding whether three votes would be needed to place the item on the agenda, Ms. Harryman confirmed that was the case. Ms. Decker informed the Commission that this needed to be an agendized item so the community at large would be aware that it would be considered. She strongly recommended that, while the testimony and statement came from Commissioner Olson and the rebuttal from Chairperson Fox, the Planning Commission direct staff to place this item on the next agenda of July 25, 2007. At that time, the Commission would be able to take a vote on the item. Commissioner Blank noted that the Commissioner’s Handbook stated that action cannot be taken under Matters Initiated by Commission Members. He added that the Commission may request information from staff or direct items to be placed on future agendas. He noted that a request for agendizing an item could also be done in writing or orally, with the majority of the Commission present at that time. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 11, 2007 Page 21 of 27