2013_07_10_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, July 10, 2013 Page 3 Member Daire suggested that Section B.5. (Summary Submission) be revised to include 95 a requirement that a list of names and associated addresses be part of that submission, 96 provided via a sign-up sheet at the open house to ensure comments from those with 97 specific concerns within the notification area would be heard. 98 Chair Gisselquist closed the Public Hearing at 7:02 p.m.; no one spoke for or against. 99 MOTION 100 Member Boguszewski moved, seconded by Member Murphy to recommend to the 101 City Council APPROVAL of the TEXT AMENDMENT to Section 1011.02, 102 Procedures, of the Subdivisions Chapter of Roseville City Code, as provided in 103 Section 5 of the staff report dated July 10, 2013; amended as follows: 104  Section B.2 (Timing) to read “…not less than fifteen (15) or more than forty-five 105 (45) days…” 106 Member Boguszewski spoke in support of a list and associated addresses as 107 recommended by Member Daire; however, he recognized that those attending could not 108 be forced to sign-up. If the Commission chose to include that recommendation as an 109 amendment to the motion, Member Boguszewski suggested that the submittal summary 110 include a “voluntary list of names and associated addresses.” 111 Member Murphy stated that he initially thought that sounded like a good idea; however, in 112 his review of the last sentence in that section, citizens were welcome to submit their own 113 summary of the meeting highlighting concerns/issues and any mitigations/resolutions. 114 Member Murphy advised that his concern was whether the open house summary report 115 was an accurate portrayal of the comments versus the perception of the host of the open 116 house; and opined that the last sentence encouraging citizen submittal would accomplish 117 the same goal as recommended by Member Daire, while allowing them to remain 118 unedited by the host. 119 Member Daire opined that a citizen would be able under any circumstances to reflect his 120 views and understanding of a particular situation; however, by requiring the developer to 121 hold the open house and be responsible to report the results and to document responses 122 should remain a responsibility of the developer or open house host. Member Daire 123 questioned how the City could guarantee that a citizen could submit a dissenting view of 124 the meeting summary if they hadn’t seen the summary; and opined that his 125 understanding of the City Council’s intent was to expose the neighborhood to the nature 126 of the development prior to any Public Hearing in advance and prior to their notice by 127 staff of the Public Hearing for initial review of the preliminary plat at the Planning 128 Commission level. Member Daire further opined that this would ensure citizens weren’t 129 caught broadsided by a development proposal without sufficient research and reaction 130 time for a response with their particular concerns; and thereby adding another layer of 131 public information to field reactions prior to the formal Public Hearing; and allowing the 132 developer and neighborhood to hash out any differences that may exist. Member Daire 133 referenced the recent Dale Street Project informational meetings hosted by the City’s 134 Housing & Redevelopment Authority (HRA) as an wonderful example that demonstrated 135 how much can be gained by sharing information transparently prior to formal action and 136 allowing a developer to adjust his proposal to provide more confidence to the 137 neighborhood that their concerns are being listed to and/or mitigated. When suggesting 138 that names and addressed of those attending should be included as part of the submittal, 139 Member Daire advised that his intent was provide proof that the developer had notified 140 the appropriate stakeholders, but also to alert the Planning Commission of any potential 141 difficulties that may arise before or as part of the Public Hearing. 142 Mr. Paschke advised that the City Council was directing the developer to provide staff 143 with the summary report of any issues/concerns, not necessarily specific persons, also 144 allowing staff and ultimately the Commission and City Council to be cognizant of any 145 issues that may have been inadvertently missed or not addressed previously. Mr. 146 Paschke noted that this didn’t necessitate having names or addresses; even though the 147