2015-04-01_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, April 1, 2015 Page 6 In his attendance at numerous developer open houses, Member Daire advised that they 250 varied among developers as to their intent for a site, or if it was simply to provide 251 information on the number of proposed lots or price points and not much information on 252 the actual concept for the development. Member Daire asked if it was the expectation at 253 these open houses that the developer would talk about their concept with visuals. 254 Mr. Lloyd advised that existing requirements for open houses are space as to the type or 255 number of materials for the developer to make available, and in what level of finality they 256 were presented. Mr. Lloyd advised that part of this lack of guidance was intentional to 257 remove a perception that plans had already been presented to the City in some form or 258 fashion and was in process at the staff, Planning Commission, or City Council level and 259 therefore perceived to already be in the process of approval. Therefore, Mr. Lloyd 260 advised that the open house was geared toward alerting citizens that the application was 261 not yet in process with the City, but seeking their feedback as an important part of a 262 future application, but no other specifics were provided. Mr. Lloyd noted that the purpose 263 of the open house was to let the neighborhood see the initial concept and provide their 264 feedback and form their own opinions. 265 Mr. Lloyd observed that staff was hearing more and more that there is a desire to 266 standardize the content of that initial developer open house mailing, with staff involved in 267 language requirements as well as arranging meeting space for consistency and in 268 reviewing the nature of materials to be discussed. Therefore, Mr. Lloyd suggested it may 269 be necessary to revise language consistently across City Code related to open houses 270 and the process for approval moving forward as well. 271 Mr. Paschke suggested that staff’s intent for the open house would be if the developer of 272 a residential subdivision showed the proposed arrangement of lots compared to the 273 existing parcel, public and/or private roads proposed, preliminary information related to 274 drainage and grading, and some level of detail allowing residents to discuss and 275 comment on, as well as any preliminary tree preservation plans, or an aerial photo of 276 existing trees and lot lines, proving for some level of detail versus just a general 277 discussion. Mr. Paschke opined that this would serve to meet expectations of residents 278 for a proposed project, allowing the developer to receive good feedback to bring to their 279 engineers and surveyors to move forward in line with City Code while address any 280 concerns or input from residents, with staff subsequently receiving that product at the end 281 of that initial process. 282 Attachment B, Page 7, Lines 233 – 234 (Summary) 283 Regarding the written summary of open houses created and presented as part of the 284 application by the developer, even if they have the best interest of truth at heart, Chair 285 Boguszewski noted that he who controls the delivery process controlled the message. 286 Therefore, Chair Boguszewski suggested that developers be required to provide their 287 contact information for citizens, providing an opportunity for their summary of the 288 meetings outside of mandating those viewpoints. 289 Referencing previous Commission discussions on this topic, Mr. Lloyd pointed out that 290 language had been revised to consider once the summary is prepared, the developer 291 was required to include that as part of their formal subdivision application materials, as 292 well as mailing a copy of that summary to open house attendees who provided their 293 addresses to the developer to do so. Mr. Lloyd noted proposed subdivision code 294 language now reads that open house attendees are encouraged to submit their versions 295 of the meeting summary. 296 Chair Boguszewski opined that this could serve to trigger an analysis by those attending 297 as to the developer’s accuracy of what occurred at the meeting; but there needed to be 298 identification of where to send thoughts for those attending the open house. Chair 299 Boguszewski noted that, if the sketch plan and substitute were separated out, lines 235 300 and 236 would be removed, duly noted by staff. 301