2013_0812_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment A Page 2 of 3 Chair Gisselquist closed the Public Hearing at 7:02 p.m.; no one spoke for or against. MOTION Member Boguszewski moved, seconded by Member Murphy to recommend to the City Council APPROVAL of the TEXT AMENDMENT to Section 1011.02, Procedures, of the Subdivisions Chapter of Roseville City Code, as provided in Section 5 of the staff report dated July 10, 2013;amended as follows: x Section B.2 (Timing) to read “…not less than fifteen (15) or more than forty-five (45) days…” Member Boguszewski spoke in support of a list and associated addresses as recommended by Member Daire; however, he recognized that those attending could not be forced to sign-up. If the Commission chose to include that recommendation as an amendment to the motion, Member Boguszewski suggested that the submittal summary include a “voluntary list of names and associated addresses.” Member Murphy stated that he initially thought that sounded like a good idea; however, in his review of the last sentence in that section, citizens were welcome to submit their own summary of the meeting highlighting concerns/issues and any mitigations/resolutions. Member Murphy advised that his concern was whether the open house summary report was an accurate portrayal of the comments versus the perception of the host of the open house; and opined that the last sentence encouraging citizen submittal would accomplish the same goal as recommended by Member Daire, while allowing them to remain unedited by the host. Member Daire opined that a citizen would be able under any circumstances to reflect his views and understanding of a particular situation; howeve r, by requiring the developer to hold the open house and be responsible to report the results and to document responses should remain a responsibility of the developer or open house host. Member Daire questioned how the City could guarantee that a citizen could submit a dissenting view of the meeting summary if they hadn’t seen the summary; and opined that his understanding of the City Council’s intent was to expose the neighborhood to the nature of the development pr ior to any Public Hearing in advance and prior to their notice by staff of the Public Hearing for initial review of the preliminary plat at the Planning Commission level. Member Daire further opined that this would ensure citizens weren’t caught broadsided by a development proposal without sufficient research and reaction time for a response with their particular concerns; and thereby adding another layer of public information to field reactions prior to the formal Public Hearing; and allowing the developer and neighborhood to hash out any differences that may exist. Member Daire referenced the recent Dale Street Project informational meetings hosted by the City’s Housing & Redevelopment Authority (HRA) as an wonderful example that demonstrated how much can be gained by sharing information transparently prior to formal action and allowing a developer to adjust his proposal to provide more confidence to the neighborhood that their co ncerns are being listed to and/or mitigated. When suggesting that names and addressed of those attending should be included as part of the submittal, Member Daire advised that his intent was provide proof that the developer had notified the appropriate stakeholders, but also to alert the Planning Commission of any potential difficulties that may arise before or as part of the Public Hearing. Mr. Paschke advised that the City Council was directing the developer to provide staff with the summary report of any issues/concerns, not ne cessarily specific persons, also allowing staff and ultimately the Commission and City Council to be cognizant of any issues that may have been inadvertently missed or not addressed previously. Mr. Paschke noted that this didn’t necessitate having names or addresses; even though the City Council would still be interested in and encourage citizens to provide their recollection of any discussion and/or mitigation. Mr. Paschke cautioned that any meeting summary submitted to staff by the developer and testimony given at the Public Hearing may not always be consistent; however, he noted that any opportunity for a citizen to feel their voice was being heard should be encouraged; as well as those residents