2008_0324_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Minutes Attachment A DECEMBER 7. 2007 2, Discussion included costs and cost-sharing for such notices and variables; desire for more public 3 involvement early in the process, rather than reactionary responses; number of PUD's and/or PUD ,4 Amendments heard annually (estimated at an average of 5 cases), . logistics of the process and 5 responsible parties; current practice for encouraging developers to hold public meetings, with no 6 enforcement provisions; why only PUD's and PUD Amendments were being considered, rather than all 7' land use applications; comparisons with notice provisions of other communities; and whether the 8 Planning Commission was not doing their job, or if this was a policy discussion on the City Council 9 level. o Commissioner Gottfried questioned the role of the public, the Planning Commission, and the City 1 Council and their responsibilities to the community, as well as the community's responsibility to 12, monitor the public planning process, without adding another layer of review to the process. 13 Mr. Paschke reiterated the desire to get citizens more publicly involved in the process, before a case 14 comes before the Planning Commission, and staff's recommendation for support or denial; by getting 15 them involved prior to that hearing with their concerns and issues,, and prior to the developer creating a 16 project for staff review. 1 7' Commissioner Gasongo spoke in support of staff's recommendation; opining that the applicant should 18 be encouraged to approach the public with their proposed project, and to collect public comments, ,� 9 through a consistent process,, without the City or staff over-managing the process. 2,o Further discussion included how the Planning Commission would know of discussions and comments 21 from the public meetings for their decision-making process; 2,2, Commissioner Doherty questioned why only PUD's were being singled out; and why the City of 23 Roseville would require, not suggest, more developer involvement with the public for their proposed 24 prof ect. 2,5 Chair Bakeman opined her support for additional communication opportunities between residents and 26 developers, allowing for additional public research before a more formal public hearing process. 2`7 Commissioner Doherty opined that the Planning Commission was in place to serve a purpose; and 2,8 further opined that it was up to the public to make comment verbally or in writing at those opportunities. 2,9 Commissioner Doherty opined that he wanted the public to be heard, but noted that a process was 3o already in place, and required public involvement based on their interest. 31 Mr. Paschke opined that the PUD process was a good place to start; to allow discussion outside the staff 32, and Planning Commission process, between the developer and neighborhood. 33 Commissioner Boerigter opined that attempting to codify an informal policy under PUD circumstances 34 didn't seem to serve much of a purpose; and further opined that the policy be eliminated or kept, while 35 not making it a requirement. 36 Commissioner Wozniak concurred with Commissioner Boerigter's comments; suggesting there was a 3 7' middle ground, and that this proposal be tested during 2008 for all PUD's. 38 Commissioners concurred that additional information be gathered during 2008 to determine if the public 39 has elected to become more publicly engaged in the land use process. ,40 Public Comment ,4 Chair Bake man closed the Public Hearing, with no one appearing to speak.