Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Notification Process topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press Planning Commission on notice, neighborhood meetings after agenda delay
Summary
Residents questioned the Planning Department about a late agenda posting and the city’s approach to public notice and neighborhood meetings; planning staff said legal notices, signage and mailed letters were used and apologized for the website delay.
At the Feb. Planning Commission meeting, residents raised concerns about the Planning Department’s failure to post the preceding meeting’s agenda on the city website in a timely manner and asked the commission whether neighborhood meetings or a formal notice requirement should be mandatory for development proposals.
Tommy Williams, planning department staff, apologized for the late website posting and said he accepted responsibility. “I would like to take full responsibility for it for not getting the agenda up in a timely manner,” Williams said. Williams told the commission he was “comfortable going forward with the rezoning” because the project did not violate state codes and because staff had provided notice by legal advertisement, on-site signage and mailed letters to surrounding property owners.
Several residents pressed the commission on whether the city’s new zoning rewrite removed neighborhood-meeting requirements. A resident, who identified himself as Mike Faruki, asked whether the proposed project was “in the best interest of the city” and whether the public had adequate notice. Public commenters and commissioners discussed that the commission’s role is to advise on zoning recommendations while the City Council takes final action on rezoning.
Commissioners and planning staff said neighborhood meetings are not mandatory for every application under current procedures and that applicants use different outreach methods. Planning commissioners heard public views that neighborhood meetings should be required more consistently; one resident said he had urged the City Council to require such meetings on multiple occasions.
No formal action was taken at the meeting to change notice requirements. Commissioners indicated the zoning-rewrite questions and notice procedures would be matters for Council consideration and, separately, for staff and the planning director search process to address.
The meeting record shows the commission approved consent-agenda development items by unanimous vote later in the meeting. Public comment on notification and neighborhood meetings was recorded as discussion only and did not result in a commission vote or directive recorded in the transcript.
