2008_0324_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Chair Bakeman opined that there were numerous public hearings and public meetings held for many 83 projects, but often there was no public input, and further opined that at some point, reality versus 84 perception needed to be recognized. 85 Mr. Paschke noted that the perception was still present, whether through the Twin Lakes Redevelopment 86 process; or through the White Paper received from the Friends of Twin Lakes. 8 7, Additional discussion included the role of the Planning Commission or staff in attending the open house, 88 or even being notified of such a meeting, with Commissioners noting that they had not received notice 89 of either of the open houses referenced for tonight's agenda items. go Further discussion included whether or not the developer make allowances for public comment by 9,� revising their proposal, and how the Planning Commission would track those public comments; the need 92 to notice potential Planning Commissioner attendance at an open house in accordance with Open 93 Meeting Law; and the purpose of the open house related to the process. 94 Public Comment 95 Randy Neprash, 1276 Eldridge Avenue 96 Mr. Neprash spoke as a citizen, an Executive Board Member of the Roseville Citizen's League, and one 9 7' of the authors of the White Paper as referenced by staff. Mr. Neprash summarized the various issues 98 addressed in the White Paper related to notification and distribution of information to citizens during the 99 development review process, and expressed his uniform observations of the level of uncertainty of that 100 process,, and the frustrations on the part of the citizens in finding pathways to access information in a 10 1 timely fashion for a whole range of development projects; with the end result being an unfortunate level 102, of distrust. Mr. Neprash opined that it was the consensus of that White Paper that the level of distrust 103 was driven to a large extent due to problems of notification and distribution of information; and in line 104 with that,, offered his support of the proposed text amendment as recommended by staff, providing for a 105 broadened distribution of information with a reasonable level of burden on applicants. 106 Mr. Neprash suggested options to broaden the notice area; electronic sign ups for people interested in 10 7' specific or all development projects that could be linked to those projects; or notification of advisory 108 commissions in that context; and to facilitate a set of modifications for the entire development review ,� 09 process. ,r� o Additional discussion included existing electronic notice abilities; notice expectations on the City's 111 website for non-city-related meetings (i.e., open houses),; how the open house would do away with or 112, resolve issues of distrust; where the level of distrust originated (staff, Planning Commission, City 113 Council, residents),; and the need for the exchange of information to be reciprocated and lines of 114 communication enhanced. 115 Commissioner Doherty reiterated his lack of support for this text amendment for mandatory open 116 houses; and his past attempts to meet with the Friends of Twin Lakes to hear their concerns, with those 11 7, attempts at communication being ignored. 118 Chair Bakeman opined that she didn't believe an ordinance was the appropriate mechanism to achieve ,r� 9 the goal of getting the information delivered to those who care; and suggested that a process be 1 2,o developed at the application conference that would include the open house as part of the process in its 121 initial stages. 12,2, Commissioner Gottfried spoke in support of staff's request for a written procedure, with some concern, 12,3 noting that in his role with MnDOT, the state legislature adopted the legislation, but that MnDOT then 124 developed rules and regulations to facilitate that legislation. Commissioner Gottfried, however, asked 12,5 for clarification on where the problem existed, and if only dealing with people's perceptions, it was the