2015-05-06_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes –Wednesday, April 1, 2015 Page 5 noting her concern with whether or not a sketch plan required the developer to still hold 200 an open house rather than just presenting a sketch to the City Council. 201 City Planner Paschke responded that the sketch plan is not currently part of the platting 202 process, and used to be partof the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process.Mr. 203 Paschke confirmed that a sketch plan would preclude an open house. 204 Member Cunningham stated that she was not in favor of the proposed language if a 205 sketch plan at the City Council level waived the requirement for a developer open house. 206 Member Cunningham opined that a developer open house provided much more common 207 ground for citizens and developers in a more informal and less intimidating format versus 208 a formal City Council, and would provide a different type of feedback and more citizen 209 engagement.Member Cunningham expressed her strong disagreement with this 210 substitute provision, and wanted to go on record with her strong concerns. 211 Member Bull shared Member Cunningham’s concerns, opining that an open house 212 provided an informal ability for citizens to ask the developer questions outside a formal 213 City Council meeting.Member Bull stated that he liked the sketch plan as a way to 214 engage the City Council and determine majority support for their project or suggested 215 ideas from individual Councilmembers on improvements to the project. 216 Member Murphy questioned if there were advantages for a sketch plan versus an open 217 house. 218 Mr. Bilotta stated that staff was noting the Commission’s desire to separate out the 219 sketch plan and developer open house but not to provide an option for one or the other. 220 Mr. Bilotta advised that staff’s rationale in the proposed language was based on a 221 concern that if a large group of citizens came before the City Council when they had a 222 broader agenda to act on as well, there would not be as much time for discussion of a 223 particular project.Mr. Bilotta suggested the two options be separated and break their 224 connection. 225 Mr. Paschke asked the Commission’s preference for which occurred first, presentation of 226 a sketch plan to the City Council or the developer open housewhere a sketch plan would 227 also be presented. 228 Member Cunningham opined that as soon as something goes before the City Council, 229 the perception of citizens –whether accurate or not –is that the decision-making process 230 has already started.If the open house is held first, Member Cunningham opined that no 231 credibility would then be given to that public perception. 232 Chair Boguszewski concurred with Member Cunningham and offered his support to her 233 rationale, opining that the presenter of a sketch plan at the City Council level could then 234 attest that they had held an open house and whether or not a sketch plan had been 235 incorporated in discussions held at that open house. 236 Member Murphy opined that a sketch plan would theoretically be needed for a developer 237 open house anyway. 238 Chair Boguszewski noted that it could be a draft, at which time the developer made 239 revisions before presenting it to the City Council. 240 Member Bull opined that the developer could indicate at the open house that this was an 241 initial sketch plan, and the intent to present it to the City Council, at which point the 242 proposal may receive more publicity and more public interest with televising the City 243 Council meetings. 244 At the request of Member Daire, Mr. Lloyd clarified that the sketch plan was not part of 245 the Preliminary Plat process, but was only intended as a barometer to see if the proposal 246 was viable before the developer spent money for their engineer and other parties to 247 proceed, or if indications were that the proposal needed further revision or a different site 248 before proceeding. 249