pf07-061 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

i 2 3 4 5 6 d. PROJECT FILE 0010 Consideration of revisions to the City Code that would increase the distribution area for direct mailing of public notices to 500' from subject properties Chair Bakeman opened the Public Hearing for Project File 0010. Mr. Paschke reviewed current practice and distance provisions for public notification regarding pending land use and zoning public hearings; and recent City Council discussions and preferences. 7 Mr. Paschke reviewed State Statute 462.357, Subd. 3; City Code requirements for the public information 8 process for zoning and land use issues, and additional staff notifications above and beyond those 9 requirements; and proposed modifications to City Code related to staff recommendations to expand the 10 notice area, to facilitate improved communication specifically with potentially controversial land use 11 issues. 12 Staff recommended adoption of amendments to Title 10 and Title 11 of the Roseville City Code to 13 increase the direct-mailing notification to property owners within 500 feet of the project site and to require 14 a neighborhood meeting/open house for residents within 500 feet of a proposed Planned Unit 15 Development (PUD) and/or a PUD Amendment. 16 Discussion included costs and cost-sharing for such notices and variables; desire for more public 17 involvement early in the process, rather than reactionary responses; number of PUD's andlor PUD 18 Amendments heard annually (estimated at an average of 5 cases); logistics of the process and 19 responsible parties; current practice for encouraging developers to hold public meetings, with no 20 enforcement provisions; why only PUD's and PUD Amendments were being considered, rather than all 21 land use applications; comparisons with notice provisions of other communities; and whether the 22 Planning Commission was not doing their job, or if this was a policy discussion on the City Council level. 23 Commissioner Gottfried questioned the role of the public, the Planning Commission, and the City Council 24 and their responsibilities to the community, as well as the community's responsibility to monitor the public 25 planning process, without adding another layer of review to the process. 26 Mr. Paschke reiterated the desire to get citizens more publicly involved in the process, before a case 27 comes before the Planning Commission, and staffs recommendation for support or denial; by getting 28 them involved prior to that hearing with their concerns and issues, and prior to the developer creating a 29 project for staff review. 30 Commissioner Gasongo spoke in support of staff's recommendation; opining that the applicant should be 31 encouraged to approach the public with their proposed project, and to collect public comments, through a 32 consistent process, without the City or staff over-managing the process. 33 34 35 36 37 38 Further discussion included how the Planning Commission would know of discussions and comments from the public meetings for their decision-making process; Commissioner poherty questioned why only PUD's were being singled out; and why the City of Roseville would require, not suggest, more developer involvement with the public for their proposed project. Chair Bakeman opined her support for additional communication opportunities behveen residents and developers, allowing for additional public research before a more formal public hearing process. 39 Commissioner poherty opined that the Planning Commission was in place to serve a purpose; and further 40 opined that it was up to the public to make comment verbally or in writing at those opportunities. 41 Commissioner poherty opined that he wanted the public to be heart, but noted that a process was 42 already in place, and required public involvement based on their interest. 43 Mr. Paschke opined that the PUD process was a good place to start; to allow discussion outside the staff 44 and Planning Commission process, between the developer and neighborhood. 45 Commissioner Boerigter opined that attempting to codify an informal policy under PUD circumstances 46 didn't seem to serve much of a purpose; and further opined that the policy be eliminated or kept, while not 47 making it a requirement.