Agenda - 11-06-2014 - 5c - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

DRAFT 109 make an adequate recommendation to the BOCC. I think we can do something, I only been on the Board for a 110 couple of months now so I don't know what went on in the past regarding the quorums. I do feel like if you're a 111 member of the Planning Board then it is your obligation to make sure you attend the meetings. I think what we need 112 to do is stress that we need to keep things the way they are, continue the public hearing, continue with the Planning 113 Board playing a very big role in it so they can make the recommendations they need to, because evidentially, if they 114 don't, then you might as well dissolve the Planning Board and not even have it. That's my recommendation. 115 116 Pete Hallenbeck: One challenge that came out of this whole discussion that hit me was during the quarterly public 117 hearing, I referred to citizens that want to go to the top they want to go to the decision makers and sometimes it's 118 hard to get citizens to come to an advisory board, they want to talk to the Commissioners. Part of the reason for 119 making sure that this notification process tells people about the Planning Board is to give them more opportunities for 120 input. The before and after comes down to what Craig has up on the board. We have a public hearing then Planning 121 Board then BOCC action. I think that's good I think that's critical and I think the Planning Board has to get input so 122 they can make the recommendation to the Commissioners. When I talk about having a Planning Board meeting after 123 what I am talking about is once the Board of County Commissioners has made decision, I don't think there is any role 124 for further input from the Planning Board. I do think it's critical and would even say they shouldn't make a decision 125 before the Planning Board has had an opportunity to make a recommendation. Any time the Commissioners have 126 the option of doing it and just saying wow, this is just too much to handle all this input, they can kick it back to the 127 Planning Board and we can talk it over and it will come up at the next meeting, they have that option. So, yes if the 128 impression that the Planning Board is somehow being diminished in its role, no I don't want that. I do want to make 129 sure we don't hold up the citizens that show up and I'd like to find a way to encourage citizens to come to the 130 Planning Board to get their concerns known earlier. Part of that is what I'm talking about in here about the Planning 131 Board meeting with the public if the public could come to these meetings, it is a bit of a dry run. The other thing that 132 came up in that meeting is another problem we've always had which is would that we had a crystal ball to predict the 133 no- brainers from the ones that are going to be controversial. If we can get citizens to come to the Planning Board 134 with input earlier, we can get a better feel of what is going on. The Commissioners can see that when they read the 135 minutes and I think those are ways the Planning Board can be more engaged than it is now. 136 137 Bryant Warren: The problem with that is they want to meet with the top people and by having a joint public hearing 138 appearing with both then they are both getting the information and people are showing up for it. 139 140 Pete Hallenbeck: I wouldn't be surprised if it continues in the same way but I also don't want to penalize people who 141 want to learn how the systems works and try to get the most out of it. So if they have a 45 day notice and they come 142 to the Planning Board and they're organized and they come to us and say here's the concern and talk about it then 143 the Commissioners can read it. That's the closest we're going to come to that no- brainer crystal ball. They will be 144 much more informed, the Commissioners will, than if all this just hits them for the first time. 145 146 Bryant Warren: Right now we have one every 4 months, if it goes to every 2 months, is there not some way if we 147 need another public hearing we can call one or do we have a time frame that would keep us from doing that. 148 149 Craig Benedict: The Unified Development Ordinance does set out a public hearing specific dates of 4 a year. We 150 can amend the UDO to say there are other times we can consider amendments. As Perdita put up there, there are 151 three types of hearing, the legislative ones are typically a little bit easier. There is a good possibility we could move 152 some of those legislative items to a regular meeting and have some more opportunities for them. We know that the 153 quasi-judicial are usually the ones that are a little bit more labored because of the testimony and that would probably 154 clog up a regular meeting so having the quarterly public hearings isolated for them will probably remain a good idea. 155 We can consider regular Commission meetings to have a public hearing. 156 157 Bryant Warren: I know a lot of developers want to get it out, get it to the public, and get it back as quickly as they can 158 so they can start generating money from it. That's probably what we're trying to do is to accommodate some of them 159 so I don't see anything wrong with it. 160 161 Pete Hallenbeck: We have the full spectrum of the developers would love a two month process and a lot of citizens 162 would like a nine month process. What you're talking about with additional meetings, I know Commissioner Jacobs