Agenda - 08-17-2010 - 6b - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8 Approved via an email vote the week of July 26, 2010; scheduled to be affirmed at the 8/18/10 meeting Larry Wright I would be hesitant to push something through like that because we are here to represent the people not just as Pianning Board members. We have a charge. Judith Wegner: I would take what Mark said to be if you don't have any more comments or complications we should refer things at the first available date to the Board of County Commissioners and not assume there has to be tuvo or three months because during that period,it is not like anyone is getting more information. Mark Marcoplos: In both of these incidences no one thought there would be any problems. If there is any hint of a problem, I would say we defer for further discussion but both of these incidences,we came to the meeting with no discussion and it was a no brainer. Judith Wegner: I have never understood the cycle of what we hear when the hearing date is set up months ahead of time. If it is unclear to me you can imagine how it is for a ci6zen. In some way,it seems we should be consistent about these timeframes. We should ask ourselves what the point is of the extended period. There have been times where we have had pressures with changing documentation when we had the Buckhom situation where we had things thrown at us at every mee6ng while we were working on the comp plan and other things. It was very fnistrating because it was as though we were being forced to act more quickly than warranted. Whereas if things are simple and we have the documentation what is wrong with moving ahead promptly. Larry Wright: LeYs say we chose to get out heads together after the Quarterly Public Hearing and we did choose to consider an equipment building or something. Who registers,who voted and who descended and that sort of thing? Judith Wegner: I think we can't literally decide that if this is a hearing opportunity we have to honor it and see if anybody comes to it;but we can have our own understanding and when we prepare for the next meeting we can take that into account. Brian Crawford: It has to be in the public. The question is,we deliberated first and made the recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners and have the public hearing. The public hearing is closed. I don't know if there is anything in the law that prevents us from deliberating that night at the public hearing for referral to the Board of County Commissioners at their next scheduled meeting as opposed to coming back here and then missing another month. Judith Wegner: We are not set up in that meeting to have someone to take our comments or be on the record. Either way the deliberations need to be recorded and we need to be clear about that and decide we will have a meeting that we stay longer. Michael Haroey: There are reasons the process operates the way it does. A lot of it has to do with staff's responsibility in getting memorandums, documentation completed and into the queue to be reviewed by the County attomey, manager and planning director, etc. I don't disagree with Mark that there may be a better way to do this. My fear is over making the decision that a pa�icular item was a"no braine�"and what items are not potentially puts this Board at a disadvantage or a situation where they are making judgment call. Applicants can then argue that they should have been'fast tracked'or neighbors could argue we did not give an item proper review. It is a catch 22 when we try and determine what items are and are not a'no brainer'. Staff has certain obligations from an administrative processing standpoint to get things done in a certain manner of time so they can be reviewed by all necessary parties. The ordinance guarantees the Planning Board 90 days of review time on a given item. If you don't make a recommendation in 90 days,it goes back the Board of County Commissioners without recommendation. It is very rare that I have seen this Board to take the fult 90 days if they are comfortable with what has been presented. Buckhorn was an exception that took longer because the Board requested more time. My concern is that it puts the Board in an awkward position of determining what constitutes and easy application to review and comment upon. Mark's suggestion has a lot of validity. You could discuss this matter further with the Board of County Commissioners when you do your annual retreat on how you can speed the process up. That fits in nicely with the next phase of the UDO that is sta�ing sometime this fall and early spring. Brian Crawford: For instance,would we have been able,through Mark's process,would these have been able to be ready for us to decide. Given what you said,would this have been available to use the evening right after the public hearing. 2